Believe what you want, but I get so much better gas mileage using NON-ethanol 85-87 octane gasoline than any of this 10% or 85% ethanol crap.

(Highway mileage)

2003 Toyolta Camry: 30mpg (E10) 33mpg (Non-ethanol)
2000 Focus: 31mpg (E10) 33mpt (Non-ethanol)
1983 Honda Motorcycle: 32mpg (E10) 36mpg (Non-ethanol)
1994 F250 : 9.5mpg (E10) 10.6 (Non-ethanol)

Luckily non of my vehicles can use E85. I'd probably go broke using that stuff. Plus it's not even any better for the environment. Most places aren't so fotunate. Our neighbors to the south is almost impossible to find gasoline without ethanol in it. Not sure how much longer Exxon can keep doing it, but I will keep supporting them. The price is the exact same as the E10 gasonline at other stations. But I get better mileage which means better for the ecology and environment. Later... Mike....

 

I would love to have some E10 around here. You may be complaining about the drop in mpg, but that is 10% less oil that we would have to use if all gas is E10. I know once you figure in the drop in mpg, it won't be 10% less oil, but it is still less foriegn oil that we will have to use, and that means less money into terrorists hands.

 

If you say so.

 

The biggest reason E10 was introduced was to 'oxygenate' the fuel and reduce smog components that were being produced. I'm sorry. I thought I could get all the oxygen I needed to run my engines for FREE!!!!! WHY should I have to pay extra for it in the form of reduced efficiency? :shrug:

 

Exxon Mobil-record profits!!!! 10% ethanol don't reduce your mileage much if at all-your truck must need a tune-up. Do an ethanol test(kits are available from parts stores, or just use a test tube) chances are, your using at least 10% already!!

 

I don't need a tuneup. My truck runs perfect. And, if you read my first post in it's entirety, you will see that I showed you the mileage difference of 4 of my vehicles. I've been doing a lot of testing of ethanol E10 and regular 87 octane gas over the last 12-18 months. As well as revisiting acetone and some other things. While a couple miles a gallon isn't much of a difference, (<=10%), being E10 and 85-87 octane costs the EXACT SAME, it makes sense to use the NON-ethanol gas. Even if it's only 1% gas mileage difference.

Using E85 in the approprate flex-fuel vehicle is a different matter all together. Either way, the research I have done, does not lead me to be such a big fan of ethanol. I am just glad that I have a choice. That I DON'T have to use any ethanol if I prefer not to. I can run my vehicles on the fuel they were built for. I can use less gas because it's more efficient. I don't like subsidizing Archer Daniel Midland and others to produce ethanol while the price of many other goods related to it go up in price. And the list goes on. Hell, there are university studies by the big boys at UCLA, USC, MIT, and others that show that ethanol could be just a bad for the environment/ecology and possibly even more harmful to human health.

No, I think I will stick with Exxon non-ethanol gasoline. It has proven better in my vehicles. That's good enough for me. Later... Mike.....

P.S. Our stations say on the pump if the gas is oxygenated with 10% ethanol or not. The Exxon stations, as well as Stags, don't have ethanol in their gas. The majority of the others all do. Then again, at high altitude, we also have 85 octane gas too. Later....

 

Now you WOULD think that. Wouldn't ya? Well, it's just simple math, so let's check it out. A gallon of E10 is 90% gasoline. If we can agree on that, let's go to the numbers.

From Christcorp's numbers:

(Highway mileage)

2003 Toyolta Camry: 30mpg (E10) 33mpg (Non-ethanol)
2000 Focus: 31mpg (E10) 33mpt (Non-ethanol)
1983 Honda Motorcycle: 32mpg (E10) 36mpg (Non-ethanol)
1994 F250 : 9.5mpg (E10) 10.6 (Non-ethanol)

Now if we take a 1000 mile trip the fuel usage and amount of gasoline used will be:

(Highway mileage)

2003 Toyolta Camry: 33.3 (gal E10) 30.3 (gal of gas) 30 (Gal of gas in the E10)
2000 Focus: 32.3 (gal E10) 30.3 (gal of gas) 29.0 (Gal of gas in the E10)
1983 Honda Motorcycle: 31.3 (gal E10) 27.8 (gal of gas) 28.1 (Gal of gas in the E10)
1994 F250 : 105.3 (gal E10) 94.3 (gal of gas) 94.7 (Gal of gas in the E10)

So, the only car of the 3 that used less gasoline when burning E10 was the focus and that was less by 1.3 gallons in 1000 miles. The rest used basically the same amount of gasoline between using E10 and plain gas.

Difference being the oil companies can charge more for E10 and make a higher margin on it.

Does E10 still sound like a good deal? Any wonder that the evil oil companies aren't squaking about having to provide E10? It's part of the reason for those huge profits many people like to bawl about.

 

i live in illinois and here we can get E10 for about 15 cents cheaper than 87 octane. my 94 f150 runs better i believe on e10 and have ran it for about 3 years now i believe. i don't notice a big difference in the mpg. actually recently i've been getting about 17 or sometimes low 18 mpg on the highway. which is really good for a truck with 160,000 miles