Jump to content

 







Photo

Did an experiment, ethanol versus non ethanol


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 whirli

whirli

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Location:MN
  • Sled:xp

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:20 PM

Decided to do a little experiment to see what my MPG difference is between running the tank of ethanol E10 fuel found in all regular unleaded, and running a tank of non ethanol in non-oxy premium fuel. Test car was the 2002 Chevy Malibu with 230,000 miles; both tanks were burned driving to and from work only. Weather was about the same during the two tanks.

First tank: Ethanol: 302 Miles burning 10.6 gallons of fuel: 28.4mpg.

Second tank: Non Ethanol: 330.4 miles burning 10.2 gallons of fuel: 32.4 MPG.

That is a difference of: 14% in the vehicle.

Now, I don’t believe that fuel alone made this much of a difference, the two tanks were burned with driving to and from work only, I tried to drive the same, but I think subconsciously I may have been easier on the pedal with the non-oxy….. I also tried to get as much in the tank as possible when I filled the car, I also filled both tanks up at around ¼ tank.

So, if fuel was purchased today, ethanol it would cost: $.12/ mile: non ethanol: $.11/mile.

I’m thinking as long as they are within 10% of each other at the station, I’ll fill with the non-oxy.

#2 dpach

dpach

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sled:2012 XF800 LXR

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:32 PM

Decided to do a little experiment to see what my MPG difference is between running the tank of ethanol E10 fuel found in all regular unleaded, and running a tank of non ethanol in non-oxy premium fuel. Test car was the 2002 Chevy Malibu with 230,000 miles; both tanks were burned driving to and from work only. Weather was about the same during the two tanks.

First tank: Ethanol: 302 Miles burning 10.6 gallons of fuel: 28.4mpg.

Second tank: Non Ethanol: 330.4 miles burning 10.2 gallons of fuel: 32.4 MPG.

That is a difference of: 14% in the vehicle.

Now, I don’t believe that fuel alone made this much of a difference, the two tanks were burned with driving to and from work only, I tried to drive the same, but I think subconsciously I may have been easier on the pedal with the non-oxy….. I also tried to get as much in the tank as possible when I filled the car, I also filled both tanks up at around ¼ tank.

So, if fuel was purchased today, ethanol it would cost: $.12/ mile: non ethanol: $.11/mile.

I’m thinking as long as they are within 10% of each other at the station, I’ll fill with the non-oxy.



That is why Ethanol gas hasn't and will never be a big thing (is only used because it's government mandated). Ethanol doesn't burn as hot which means less horsepower and less mpg than regular unleaded gas. Plus Ethanol is very hard on injectors, etc. That is why E85 rated vehicles have specific injectors, etc when compared to normal motors. So it you get less hp, and less mpg, why would anyone intentionally use it.

#3 snowfreak56

snowfreak56

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antigo Wi
  • Sled:04rev500ss 95mach1 04gsx600sdi

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:02 AM

But you also have to keep in mind you didnt just do away with some ethanol in this test you also went to premium so you also increased octain..Ethanol does cost us mileage thou..And i can tell a pretty good difference in the mileage on my pickup if i can get non ethanol and the difference is bigger yet if towing.

#4 DOO_TINT

DOO_TINT

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western, NY
  • Interests:2 wheels and snomobiles
  • Sled:03 600HO 05 550GSX to X

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:43 AM

That is why Ethanol gas hasn't and will never be a big thing (is only used because it's government mandated). Ethanol doesn't burn as hot which means less horsepower and less mpg than regular unleaded gas. Plus Ethanol is very hard on injectors, etc. That is why E85 rated vehicles have specific injectors, etc when compared to normal motors. So it you get less hp, and less mpg, why would anyone intentionally use it.


E85 needs more fuel to to be injected to work rite for the 20% more power and less mpg for the flex fuel cars/trucks

my sled/600HO went 85mi on 6gals with 87/E10 during the day and at night it went down to 10mpg,because of WOT,60mi on 6gals/prem E10 and then i found some non eth 91 and didnt check the mpg after cause the ride was over,,but maybe i will drain the tank and see how much was used for the last 70 miles
If somethings not broke,i will fix that!

#5 ZXdood

ZXdood

    old ski-dool

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Close to Hell
  • Interests:Snowmobiles-ATV's-Streetbikes
  • Sled:01 MXZ-X 700


  •    

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:50 AM

E85 needs more fuel to to be injected to work rite for the 20% more power and less mpg for the flex fuel cars/trucks

my sled/600HO went 85mi on 6gals with E10 during the day and at night it went down to 10mpg,because of WOT everywhere?50mi on 5gals and then i found some non eth 91 and didnt check the mpg after cause the ride/season was over,,but maybe i will drain the tank and see how much was used for the last 70 miles


WHAT?
ZXdood

#6 mxzeatr

mxzeatr

    Advanced Member

  • DOOCrew
  • 40,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellaire, MI
  • Sled:06 Summit X

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:15 AM

Decided to do a little experiment to see what my MPG difference is between running the tank of ethanol E10 fuel found in all regular unleaded, and running a tank of non ethanol in non-oxy premium fuel. Test car was the 2002 Chevy Malibu with 230,000 miles; both tanks were burned driving to and from work only. Weather was about the same during the two tanks.

First tank: Ethanol: 302 Miles burning 10.6 gallons of fuel: 28.4mpg.

Second tank: Non Ethanol: 330.4 miles burning 10.2 gallons of fuel: 32.4 MPG.

That is a difference of: 14% in the vehicle.

Now, I don’t believe that fuel alone made this much of a difference, the two tanks were burned with driving to and from work only, I tried to drive the same, but I think subconsciously I may have been easier on the pedal with the non-oxy….. I also tried to get as much in the tank as possible when I filled the car, I also filled both tanks up at around ¼ tank.

So, if fuel was purchased today, ethanol it would cost: $.12/ mile: non ethanol: $.11/mile.

I’m thinking as long as they are within 10% of each other at the station, I’ll fill with the non-oxy.



Neat idea with the testing...


We have that same car, and I can see that mileage difference between when I drive the car for a week and when my wife drives the car for a week. Filling up at the same gas station. I'm always 30+ she's always below 30, and she has a highway commute vs my country road/stop/go/small town commute...

#7 MX-Z Man

MX-Z Man

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tug Hill Area, NY
  • Sled:'15 800X ATV: '13 Outlander 500XT

Posted 25 April 2012 - 12:18 PM

I'm on the road for work so I fill regularly. Before E10 I ran a consistant 30 MPG, with E10 I run between 26-27 consistantly. In my case it's simple math;

10% ethanol = 10% less fuel consumption. In other words it does nothing to reduce the petro based fuel usage AND I'm burning up a food source (that takes X amount of energy to produce) at the same time. It's such a looser a 3rd grader could figure it out - and that explains why our politicians can't.

But you also have to keep in mind you didnt just do away with some ethanol in this test you also went to premium so you also increased octain..Ethanol does cost us mileage thou..And i can tell a pretty good difference in the mileage on my pickup if i can get non ethanol and the difference is bigger yet if towing.


That may have actually hurt him. If a car is designed to burn 87 many times running a higher octane will actually lower mileage (burns faster). I've seen that with at least 3 of my cars. And like I said, I'm on the road a lot.
Posted Image

The XP is the most fun sled ever made - but I like my XR more.

No Need to Freeze - buy a set of these! http://www.coldguards.com/

#8 woody-33

woody-33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sled:yea i got one

Posted 25 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

Higher octane does not burn faster it just spontaneously combusts at a higher temperature.
Ethanol does have less "energy" per gallon that's why you get less mileage out of a tank when you use it compared to straight gas.

#9 squidward

squidward

    Shredding the Gnar

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, MN
  • Interests:Hill-X
  • Sled:sticker says 380!

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:57 PM

I'm on the road for work so I fill regularly. Before E10 I ran a consistant 30 MPG, with E10 I run between 26-27 consistantly. In my case it's simple math;

10% ethanol = 10% less fuel consumption. In other words it does nothing to reduce the petro based fuel usage AND I'm burning up a food source (that takes X amount of energy to produce) at the same time. It's such a looser a 3rd grader could figure it out - and that explains why our politicians can't.


You can make that same 3rd grader say whatever if you pay them enough.....just like politicians.

Current Frankensled....2011 RS + 2008 summit + Holz Alpha X + RKT 800HO
766a4152-6686-478e-96fc-1b147dfd393f.jpg
Parting out...Clicky ~~~>  2007 Summit X and 2011 600 RS


#10 x-treme

x-treme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,457 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:hopkins mn
  • Interests:snowmobiling,motorcycling,golf
  • Sled:09 1200 GSX Limited

  •    

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:56 PM

Politicians are weakening our country. We may have to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from them. Politicians are trying to take away our right to bear arms because they want us tk be defenceless

#11 Saluda

Saluda

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH & MA
  • Interests:Spyder, snowmobiling, pedal bikes & pontoon boat
  • Sled:2012 Ski Doo GSX

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:14 AM

I hate the stuff, no shelf life and the process uses a lot of water to get the final product.

#12 DOO_TINT

DOO_TINT

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western, NY
  • Interests:2 wheels and snomobiles
  • Sled:03 600HO 05 550GSX to X

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:19 AM

WHAT?


what dont you understand from my post?
If somethings not broke,i will fix that!

#13 snowfreak56

snowfreak56

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,365 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antigo Wi
  • Sled:04rev500ss 95mach1 04gsx600sdi

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:46 AM

I'm on the road for work so I fill regularly. Before E10 I ran a consistant 30 MPG, with E10 I run between 26-27 consistantly. In my case it's simple math;

10% ethanol = 10% less fuel consumption. In other words it does nothing to reduce the petro based fuel usage AND I'm burning up a food source (that takes X amount of energy to produce) at the same time. It's such a looser a 3rd grader could figure it out - and that explains why our politicians can't.



That may have actually hurt him. If a car is designed to burn 87 many times running a higher octane will actually lower mileage (burns faster). I've seen that with at least 3 of my cars. And like I said, I'm on the road a lot.

I can garantee in my GMC p/u with 6 liter vortec designed to use 87 octane that i get better mileage running non ethanol 87 octane and gets better mileage yet running fresh premium with no ethanol..

#14 hitekbalancer

hitekbalancer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Sled:2009 1200 rev XR, 600 GT rev XR

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:39 AM

I'm on the road for work so I fill regularly. Before E10 I ran a consistant 30 MPG, with E10 I run between 26-27 consistantly. In my case it's simple math;

10% ethanol = 10% less fuel consumption. In other words it does nothing to reduce the petro based fuel usage AND I'm burning up a food source (that takes X amount of energy to produce) at the same time. It's such a looser a 3rd grader could figure it out - and that explains why our politicians can't.



That may have actually hurt him. If a car is designed to burn 87 many times running a higher octane will actually lower mileage (burns faster). I've seen that with at least 3 of my cars. And like I said, I'm on the road a lot.

First of all it's not 10% less energy. That would assume that the ethanol did nothing to contribute to the BTU's of per pound of fuel. Pure Ethanol is 66% the btu's per pound of gasoline. Therefore you are only loosing 34% of 10% or 3.4% max. The fuel energy per pound for various fuels are calculated in gallon equivalents.

E10 is 1.019 gallon equivalent, or 111,836 BTU/gal, Gasoline is 114,000 BTU/gal. see chart http://www.hho4free...._vs_ethanol.htm

There are a variety of blends and there is more going on here than just gas and ethanol. There are other additives that add btus when 10% is used, in effect improving the 3.4% theoretical change.

The blends have to be close to each other otherwise "dumb cars" (crude injection systems and carburetors can't compensate) E85 is a completely different fuel. That is why you need a flex fuel car to use it. The car analyzes the characteristics of the fuel and exhaust gasses and compensates.

In the end e10 is only 1.9% different than gasoline.The evidence here is completely anecdotal.I.E wishful thinking and not based on controlled experiments.

The OP said he may have been biased with his foot when he ran the straight gasoline. The octane rating has nothing to do with the outcome. A 10 year old engine of this type will struggle to produce 8.5:1 compression. It can't take advantage of the improved octane.

You could easily be a gallon or more off in the fill up. Thats at least 7% there. Each pump "pops" off a little differently. Have you noticed when you fill up some pumps a more sensitive than others?

Snowmobiles are a terrible tool to compare one fuel to another.The snow conditions may be hard ans slippery one day and slushy the next.More trails or more wide open another day.

Based on the 1.9% difference, that is what you should get. If a test showed this accurately I think it would be luck that gave you the result.

#15 BARK-A-LOUNGER

BARK-A-LOUNGER

    Scuttle Buttin' Solo

  • DOOCrew
  • 5,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Sled:2015 MXZ X 1200 4-TEC & 800 E-TEC

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:57 AM

I do follow what you're saying for the most part but to be 100% honest my head is spinning a bit. Here where I am in Maine we have no choice between having ethanol and not let alone any other choices besides diesel . But, the difference in winter gas an summer gas findings by me are similar. Winter gas I find poor mileage although the performance seems to be the same.

I've tested the differences between low, med, high octane and found even though my Subaru is recommended to run on low grade it runs better on mid, and mileage is worse than low while running high octane.

But, this past winter when pulling my single place enclosed snowmobile trailer up north and encountering some real hills the only fuel it would not stumble a bit on while under load was the high test.................crazy I thought. Can this be explained other than to use a "real" tow vehicle?

Posts that are "bashing" or "flaming" in any nature will not be tolerated. We encourage members to express their opinions on the subjects being discussed, and by no means is it an expectation that everybody will agree on all subjects. But, posts that are obvious attacks on other people, brands, or are a blatant attempt to stir controversy will be deleted.

 

Members violating these rules will be removed from the site.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users