Any gas chains that don't use ethanol?

I hardly think that two tanks is an accurate test. The sample is too small. Too many things could affect it. Traffic conditions alone would skew the results to an unusable result in only two tanks. Also, if a scanguage (I have no experience with this instrument) is anything like the monitors included in the instrumentation packages of some vehicles, I would absolutely reject that data outright. I've owned a variety of vehicles from all the major manufacturers and never seen one that was even reasonably accurate. Example: my 2005 Chevy 2500HD with a Duramax has a MPG function. Leave it alone for a couple of thousand miles and it will read 16-18 MPG...not even close.

 

Just wondering what VT you are refering to haha

 

The ethanol is now required as part of the effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It has nothing to do with the RFG pollution-smog reduction program the chart refers to. Even if it were relevant that chart was updated in May 2007.

 

Ok, we can disagree and still be friends.
That said, I loath misinformation.
For starters, you do not eat the kind of corn that is used for ethanol.
There are many many sources that refute your claims of net energy loss, all available on the internet. I'll post links to a but a few at the bottom of my post here, all from what I consider reputable sources. I did not cherry pick these. I just took the top few Google results. I Googled ethanol energy balance.
USDA:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

MIT
http://lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE 2008-02 RP.pdf

Various
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/...ch_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html

 

my mechanic at the park i work at back home and i always discuss ethanol. We agree it is a very poor decision to sacrifice food products for it. however new forms of it are on the horizon that are great. If anyone has heard of sawgrass, a very common pest and weed of agriculture. turns out it is VERY easy to grow and produces some very efficient ethanol.

 

Of course! that was my intentions when posting, to open a discussion. It is true that the corn doesn't feed people...directly. It is still a valuable source for livestock and it causes farmers to grow that instead of human consumption crops. I think there has to be a compromise somewhere with using plots for energy though so I can't argue that one.

From the standpoint of a selfish consumer, the ethanol is clearly not as efficient as gasoline. Overall I can lay down my argument about the overall net gain/loss of energy. But from a consumers standpoint, that's 10% less of more efficient gas that isn't going into my tank on each fill up, causing me to fill up more often.

 

Ok, after refreshing my noggin online, RFG and E10 gas arent always the same thing, has to w/ Oxygenated additive for cleaner burn (though it appears most RFG gas is now formulated w/ 10% ethanol). Ten states do madate E10, yet 2/3 of the country has gas w/ some sort ethanol blend (of varying percentages up to 10%).

For example, some stations around here actually put out 'No E10' signs as a draw, there only a couple that do have E10, and have a sticker on the pump. And a few miles away in PA they have a "May contain up 10% ethanol".


Interesting article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/b...0 blend fuel ethanol&st=cse&scp=2&oref=slogin

 

Well, after they extract the starch from the corn for conversion to alcohol, there are the leftovers. They do not just throw them out. The distillers grains whether dried or left wet are still utilized in cattle rations. Some portion of every bushel of corn that enters an ethanol plant still ends up going though a cow.
There is not a single doubt in my mind that ethanol contains less energy than straight gasoline. I consider my thought process to be based in the "science of things". Clearly ethanol contains less overall energy than gasoline. Something like 30% less if I remember correctly. So, how does an ingredient containing 30% less energy, but constituting only 10% or less of the total volume produce 20%-30% less mileage as some say they are experiencing. I just do not see it. As I said before I've been using E-10 for over 10 years in many different pickups. I never could see any substantial difference in either power or mileage.
The power of suggestion is a powerful thing. Some people have been preconditioned to believe that they will see negative effects in mileage and power from using ethanol. So, the first time they think they have some deficit in either category...must have been the E-10. The cause may have been anything, but because they read somewhere-maybe a website like this one-that ethanol is bad, they blame the E-10.
People should take it upon themselves to educate themselves, rather than just listening to the opinions of the uninformed. The internet is full of both education based fact and uninformed opinions.

Ignorance is fixable....stupid is forever.

 

It was 4 tanks of gas, but I only reported on t of them to make certain their were no leftover fuel from older thanks. I live in the country what is traffic. I also drove those interstate miles early in the morning 2am. For work, therefore no traffic there. The scan guage has been as accurate an me doing it by the numbers, only off .2 at the most so far. I check my numbers both ways every tank. If you don't see the difference in mileage i'm glad, your saving money, but I could tell the difference without any of this, just seeing how much more often I fill up is proof enough. Not to mention I am not the only person noting the difference.

 

i have noticed a decrease in mpg's also.

I used to easily get 300 miles to a tank, now i get on average 200, sometimes not even. I think last tank I got 170 miles, and I baby the throttle.

 

A 30%-43.3% reduction in fuel economy is attributed to E-10?

 

Ok, we can disagree and still be friends. While I do not doubt that you have seen some reduction in mileage (about 15% according to your earlier post), I do doubt that ethanol is the cause.
An average gallon of E-10 blended fuel should contain only 2.5%-3.5% less overall energy than straight gasoline. I really fail to understand how a 15%-30% drop in mileage factors in that equation. Are the computers that control the fuel mixture really that ineffective? If so, you must be running a rich mixture. Easy way to tell is pull a couple of your spark plugs out. They will tell the story.

 

I'm sure the colder weather also contributes some. As i have also noticed a drop in fuel economy with the colder temps.

 

My ,ilage sucks in the winter. I just went from 18 ave in the summer to 14 or 15 in the winter. I am gentle on the throttle as well.

 

All I can say is that the pump says it contains 10% ethanol and I am not seeing the mpg that is what I would call the norm in fuel economy. What brought me to checking is that I never noticed that they started putting ethanol into the fuel. However I was wondering how one day I got such horrible miles to my tank. After looking around I had used a different station and this one used ethanol and oddly enough my normal station doesn't. Then I started testing this was durning warmer times not that it ever gets that cold in Louisiana, but recently I was told that the colder climates decrease fuel mileage. The plugs do look like i am running alittle rich but that is how they have been from the 100th mile on my truck. Now I have just shy of 16k and it still looks the same. I can honestly say that I am not likely as educated as you but with my simple test I am not making the same mileage with the different fuels, one is better than the other. I also make better mileage with premium than I do with regular, both ethanol free.

 

I will say this when I first got my scanguage it told me that I was being too light on the pedal. As I was not getting to my sweet spot soon enough, and I was hanging out in a very poor zone. Contributing to my low mpg. I was getting high 16s then using the scanguage I regularly make 18 and better.

 

On the education issue, I am the proud holder of a two year associates degree from a Community College.
I, like you live in a rural area. It is over 30 miles to the nearest real traffic light. We lack an interstate highway system here, but not wide open highways where you may drive as you please. When I really baby the throttle, use the cruise control, never exceed 55-65 depending on the road, I can realize a 2-4 MPG difference between my normal "get where I'm going fast as possible" mode of driving. That is with the exact same fuel even.

You know, I do not even know why I'm arguing this so strongly...I've been avoiding E-10 myself. Only because it has recently been the more expensive option lately. I even live within sight of 165 MGY worth of ethanol production.

My wife always says I would argue whether or not the sun was going to rise in the east or not.
Cheers.

 

I was not trying to insult hope you didn't take the education thing that way. I know most of the people on here have college educations and all I have is my high school diploma. Its worked for me thus far. but what I was saying is that you may have more readily available formulas. I argue like you as well. It helps me learn. Thanks. Here the ethanol fuel is less expensive buy 3-5 cents per gal.

 

LOL. I would argue whether or not a dead skunk smelled bad or not. No offense taken on the education thing. In fact, I feel complimented that you thought I was an educated man. One of the most successful guys I know only has a GED on his wall. Well, I doubt he put that up on his wall...

 

For a list of stations that don't sell 10% ethanol crap, click on the following link...

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

Better hurry! I think by the end of the year all stations are going to be mandated to sell "only" ethanol blended fuel. Our smart government at work for us again!