Watered Down GAS! Some consumers cry foul, as more stations switch to E10 gasoline

I know for a FACT w/ my 2007 Honda Accord that my gas mileage w/ E10 has Dropped AT MINIMUM 10 PERCENT... Check out ALL The PROPAGANDA SELLING US, THE CONSUMERS THE BULLSHIT on E 10 Ethanol... These klowns are shoving this RIGHT DOWN OUR THROATS... If IT walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ya know... IT IS probably a DUCK!


Fuel for thought: Some consumers cry foul, as more stations switch to E10 gasoline
Sunday, February 3, 2008

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/feb/03/0203_Ethanol/

How much energy?

Most automobiles and trucks in the United States are able to run on E10 fuel, but the fuel contains less energy than gasoline. According to the EIA, a gallon of gasoline has approximately 122,169 British thermal units of energy, compared with 83,333 Btu per gallon of ethanol.

Using EIA numbers, an approximate gallon of E10 gasoline should have about 118,285 Btu, 3.2 percent less than regular unleaded gasoline. How that affects fuel mileage in various model cars is disputed by proponents and opponents of ethanol production and consumers of the product.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the trade association for the Pure PROPAGANDA google this SHIT now! fuel injected cars may experience a decrease of approximately 2 percent in fuel economy using E10. TWO PERCENT MY ASS!!!!!! :puke:

**** :think: :eyes: Tony Kossman, the chairman of Hudson Valley Community College’s Automotive Technical Service Department, said he drives a full-sized truck and has routinely seen his gas mileage reduced more than 2 percent since E10 came to the Capital Region.

:eyes: “It reduces the fuel mileage by 10 to 20 percent. Nobody has experienced as little fuel mileage loss. The least you hear about is 10 percent and then up from there,” Kossman said. “It’s all proportional. The big cars, because they are larger and there is less energy , will use more fuel.”

.... PURE BULLSHIT FROM RUTH HERE!!!!!!!!!! Ruth Horton, a researcher at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said E10 should not hurt fuel economy very much for most cars and claims of more than 10 percent loss are anecdotal and not scientific.:puke: on Ruth and ALL the other assorted propaganda snakeoil ethanol salesmen ... mostly out of Iowa and Dakotas... Nuth'n more than 21st century WATERED DOWN GAS!!!!!!!!


AND.... THESE BASTARDS WANT NOT JUST TEN PERCENT... BUT 20 NOR 30 PERCENT BOOZE... AND has anybody been to the grocery store lately?

It's driving the price of corn way up, which in turn is making meat and dairy products way more expensive than they used to be since corn is used as feed, especially for poultry. I hope this ethanol fad dies a quick death.

Ethanol from sugar cane, biomass or similar is much better though, and one of the things we must increasingly turn to as we diversify our fuels.

you were probably already running E10 during the winter. Many areas in the northeast are required by the Feds to run E10 in order to meet pollution standards during the winter months.

E-10 from November to March to cut down on ozone.

My gas mileage in the winter is horrible compared to summer even if I use the A/C. My Buick Century used to get 27-28 mpg in summer without A/C use and a little better on a trip. During the winter it now gets 22-24 mpg doing interstate driving and 25-27 in the summer. And, yes, I check tire pressure once a month and the vehicle is regularly serviced including air filters when needed.

> If you are in the northeast you were probably already
> running E10 during the winter.

Which explains why Mr. Tesha's Dodge Caravan gets far
worse mileage during the winter. In the summer, he
routinely expects to get between 23 MPG (going fast)
and 29 MPG (babying it). But in the wintertime, he's
lucky to get 23 no matter how hard he tries.

Cold weather is part of the effect but I think we can
safely conclude that E10 has a significant effect as
well.

Tesha

It's well known that cars lose mileage in winter, E10 or no E10.

I'd encourage you to test during the same season, and not just for one tank but
3 or 4 for each fuel, to get a realistic impression of what impact the E10 has.

But I do have access to intermittent warm weather and
even on warm days, on winter fuel, the Caravan's mileage
sucks compared to "summer fuel". Ergo: the Ethanol is
a significant contributor.

Tesha

...and owning a Prius I have built-in equipment to track it.

I drive a Prius, too, and I always notice when I have gas with ethanol. As near as I can tell, it's about a 10% difference. There are stations I avoid for that reason.

I know we've had ethanol in our gas for a long time, but it's always been blended at 5%. Did I miss a recent change? I'm wondering because I've been puzzling over a mileage loss in my Subaru lately...I used to get about 290 miles to a fill-up, but lately I've been down around 250 (around a 15% drop). I've checked my tire pressure and air filter, and was planning on taking it to the mechanic to make sure nothing was wrong.

Did we implement a new fuel blend?

as a matter of fact - mine runs smoother on e-10. Some do some don't, but I do suspect the oil co.'s are behind the smear campaign.

And we've been burning E10 for quite some time. But, when we switched i noticed no difference in either car.
The Professor

That doesn't mean you should sit and let the engine warm up. You might as well be going somewhere while the engine is warming up.

I have seen similar results with 4 different vehicles - all from different manufacturers, 1 car, 1 van, 1 truck, 1 crossover. It took a calculator and bit of algebra but all lost enough mileage to where they actually used more GASOLINE than they would have on straight gas alone.

Example, my 1984 Econoline liftvan. Georgia BP straight gas I average 44.2 gallons of gasoline to go one way 726 miles on a trip to see my extended family. 10 days later I made the trip back to Georgia - my tank was on fumes when I bought gas - BP "up to 10% ethanol" - gas along the way and the last gas stop was also Ethanol blend. It took a total of 56.8 gallons to get back home. Since 10% of that gas was ethanol, that would mean a maximum of 5.7 gallons was ethanol. Meaning I burnt up 51.1 gallons of GAS. I used an ADDITIONAL 6.9 gallons of gas. A previous trip, before all stations were ethanol blends, my return was very close mileage to by trip there.

3 people I know have done similar tests in their vehicles and come up with similar results.

yes, it's anecdotal. But it's valid enough for me.

68 Ford 3/4 ton, 57 (had it since 75) Chevy, 2 Vega's, 4 Chevy Caprices, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Celebrity, Dodge Intrepid, Nissan Altama. Burns cleaner. Higher octane. Faster starts..... My 91 Caprice gets just over 19 mpg with 133,000 miles.

In town, all the gas stations use ethanol in the gas and my compact car gets about 31 to 32 miles per gallon on the highway. On a trip last summer, I filled up with "100 percent gas" in a small town and was surprised when the next fill up indicated that I had gotten 35 to 36 MPG. Using the miles per tankful, I calculated that I got at least 10 percent better mileage with straight gas.

On the trip back, I stopped at the same station and calculated the same increase in gas mileage using fuel without ethanol in it.

My conclusion: there is NO savings of oil by putting ethanol in the gas as you have to buy more fuel to make up for the lost mileage.

Several years ago, when they started putting ethanol in the gas, I made the same experiment by switching buying gas between a station that sold ethanol gas and a station that still sold gas without ethanol. The car I drove then was a different one. The rationale for putting ethanol in the gas then was that it reduced pollution.

The difference in mileage that I got with that car was the same that I got last summer. Noticeably better gas mileage with the non-ethanol gas. I questioned, at that time, the value of using ethanol to reduce pollution. If you have to burn more fuel to drive the same number of miles, you are going to put the same amount of pollution into the air that you would by burning less fuel without ethanol.

My conclusion then as now is that putting ethanol in the gasoline is a scam to avoid a real solution, which is to move to hybrid-electric vehicles which would improve gas mileage, save the users money, reduce pollution and reduce oil consumption. Incidentally, it would reduce food prices as well.

Oh! I forget. It would also reduce oil company, Saudi, and agribusiness profits. That is enough to make it a "bad" deal and more than likely ensure it will never happen under our current economic and political situation.

Most writers here "anecdotal" though it may be, is that E10 is not giving the same bang fer the $$$BUCK$$$,,, which means we're getting screwwed!!!!!!!! This is nOT rocket science... Anyone can do the MATH w/ a calculator and... an ODOMETER!!!! This is a campaign issue.... let's make this one BIG!!!!

Corn-based Ethanol is a political payback for the bribes
campaign contributions that Archer-Daniels Midland has
paid made to our Congress over the years.

Tesha

My car runs horribly with it. I've tried running higher octane fuel but I get the same result. Gas mileage definitely suffers more than 2% with it. I don't know what to do... I have no choice but to buy E10. Would people buy the gas if it said "Contains 10% water" instead of "Contains 10% ethanol?"

I've also noticed a smell not at all unlike the morning after breath of a bad alcoholic. I get a hangover every time I smell it.
:hangover:

Yes, ethanol makes for reduced fuel economy, but on the other hand it's cheaper so that evens itself out. And there you have it; with one sentence I wrote off the premise of your entire post. It is GOOD that they mix ethanol in regular gasoline now. Calling it "watered down" is downright stupid. Ethanol by itself is not the answer, but it is one of many alternative fuels that we must increasingly turn to to fight global warming and fossil fuel dependency. It's not the final answer for the future by any means, but it's a step we must take. I have looked into buying a flexifuel car the next time I switch, to run primarily on E85. If you throw a fit about E10, I'd hate to think about the mental collapse the thought of E85 will give you. This being said though, we use too much corn for ethanol production. It should primarily be made from biomass, and sugar cane is also better than corn. Sorry Iowans, but it is not feasible in the long run to make ethanol primarily from corn and grain, no matter what the presidential candidates tell you every election year.

used to produce ethanol far and away exceed ANY benefit in using the CORN based ethanol to fuel our cars. And... CHEAPER????#@*&%#$ You have got to be kidding me! The gas is not cheaper but IT IS MORE PROFITABLE W/ ALL THE TAX SUBSIDIES FOR THE OIL COMPANIES TO SUBSTITUTE IT!!!!!!!! Wake up America.... :silly: Stop this Midwestern nonsense!!!!!!!!

:puke:

Ethanol has a much higher octane rating than reagular 87. Higher octane fuels are made for engines with a higher compression ratio. Running ethanol in an engine made for regular will decrease mpg because the engine cant take advantage of the octane increase thus the fuel not completely burning like it should. Hell, premium has less energy content than regular, but that doesn't automatically mean the fuel milage will be lower for any vehicle. My car takes premium and has a 350hp v8, I average around 22mpg, and have reached 31mpg on the interstate.

If they can make a car that can trully use ethonal, it will get similar or better fuel milage than a car running on fossils.

garbage into ethanol... Now that is a good process!