DBAL-I2 IR Laser with IR Illuminator

Trijicon Miniature Rifle Optic (MRO
FLIR Scout TK
Mt. House Freeze Dried 1-Month Starter Unit
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    gas mileage -- non ethanol

    i generally use non ethanol regular.

    we left on a trip to texas last week with a full tank in the pickup.
    computer declared 20+ mpg mostly interstate and interstate speeds.
    small load two drivers. just a family visit.
    900 miles one way.
    --
    we bought the cheapest we could find on the road. but from big stations.
    --
    by the time we turned around computer started showing 19 and 18
    on return trip computer showing 17+

    same drivers, same truck, same interstates, same hills, valleys, towns and bridges.
    most of trip was near the coast. same elevation.

    bottom line of this is that you guys store fuel. some store 2 5 gallon containers and feel proud of your accomplishment. some have 500 to 5000 gallon tanks and wish you had more. and both examples are well above Mr. Joe Average!
    may i strongly suggest that you store non ethanol... yep. it costs 15 to 20% more.

    but, your fuel will have more miles per gallon.

    one extra tale.... at one fuel location.. 92 different pumps! i forgot the name.. buckees or something.
    had a picture of a little silly beaver or ? something.... we ain't got nothing like that around where we live!

  2. #2
    Yes, ethanol was sold as a great thing. For older cars and small engines it his horrible. I replaced 3 small gas-powered yard tools because the carbs deteriorated and were more costly to repair than a new unit. The plastic fuel lines turned brittle and broke as did the fuel tanks. I heard a recent story (on this site?) about a vehicle that was at a repair shop for a few days with performance problems. The repair was to replace the fuel. Later the customer admitted that while on the road, all he could get was e-85 and the vehicle wasn’t made for it. While working for one of the “big 3” in the early 2000’s, the fuel economy ratings were bogus for ethanol. The window sticker said e-85 was 27mpg They were rating the overall fuel economy by taking the distance travelled with e-85 and dividing it by the 15% of gasoline. The actual mileage was around 12-15 mpg. Regular fuel (15% ethanol) was rated at 20 mpg. After a couple of years, they dropped that deceptive practice. I own 2 vehicles that run on it, which in the PAW, might be ok as I can make alcohol in my kitchen.

  3. #3
    Veteran of Valor and all around awesome guy!
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northeast Florida
    Posts
    701
    My 2007 GMC Sierra gets 18.5 MPG (combined hwy/local) with non-ethanol, 16.8 with 87 octane E-10.
    It has the 5.3 V-8 and recommended fuel is 87 octane or higher. My mileage does not improve by using a higher octane, but it runs better on 93 E-10 since the computer is not retarding the timing to avoid engine knock.

    I run non-ethanol in all my small engines - chain saw, generator, mowers, etc. Yes, it is $3.15 versus $2.49 at the moment, but having to spend $85 on my Husqvarna chain saw at the shop once convinced me.

    Occasionally under Obama there would be rumblings of increasing the E-10 to E-15. If that ever happens I will switch to non-ethanol in every gasoline burning device I own.
    E-15 is very bad for most engines.
    "There is nothing so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." Winston Churchill
    Member: Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, American Legion, AMVETS, Society of the Fifth Infantry Division

  4. #4
    rice,
    thanks for the post... I had to read it twice. your numbers slowed me down, but they are clear...
    can I ask for one more comparison..
    how do the numbers stack up for 93 octane e10 vs non ethanol regular. and which do you think would store better
    oops. on 3rd reading, i'm seeing mpg is the same with 93 as it is with 87..
    so i'll change my question..
    how does performance of engine compare 93 octane e10 vs. non ethanol (I run non ethanol regular so i'm assuming that is what you are using in your reference, but if i'm wrong, let me know.)

  5. #5
    2016 Silver Supporter, thank you!
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    269
    You have me convinced. I have switched over on gen set and snow plows to 91 octane, no alcohol, fuel. Can't find 93 around here. I will say all the engines start/run better then they did. About 50-60 cents more per gallon. I argue with my nephew all the time as he is a large corn farmer (LARGE) and gets subsidies for corn and has a market each year. He of course loves 10% and would like the 15% , They truly believe it is better for the air. I don't think so as you burn more on MPG so kinda a wash. When I was 18-19 my VW was getting 45 MPH or better. Just a big PR job by .gov.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •