Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-13-2016, 10:33 AM   #1
Rivet Master
 
Ray Eklund's Avatar
 
2019 27' International
2014 25' International
2006 23' Safari SE
Boulder City , Nevada
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,703
Gasoline Mileage: source of fuel a factor

We have been splitting our year at a "winter and summer" season. Eventually moving full time to Nevada, but still love the Colorado home and climate.

Southern Nevada (Las Vegas/Clark County) has more expensive gasoline. It is California seasonal and ethanol blend. It not only costs more... the mileage on our 5.7L Tundra can lose 20% of my expected miles per gallon.

At first I though it my driving habits had changed, but it was very consistent. I asked about the source of the fuel... California and all of its friendly environmental urban blends.

Once returning to Colorado my miles per gallon increased and the price per gallon decreased. Especially pulling a trailer.

Since this is just an observation and not a scientific breakthrough... your experiences might be very similar. I have not sat down and computed mpg and drawn a graph onto a chart... but I do record mpg / cost per gallon / gallons to fill my gasoline tank.

Ethanol is lousy for a fuel when you figure the cost per mile driven. I cannot wait for the day when the brightest in environmental research discover that refined pure gasoline, today, is much superior in many ways.

Certainly... I do not want to be living in China's largest cities with their thick cloud of pollution... but I live in the Rocky Mountains where elevation requires gasoline. Many major cities in the Western USA are in valleys. Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles... are good examples. Kansas... not so. Although Rock Springs, Wyoming is in a valley the wood burning fireplaces had an inversion where the smoke was held over the town in the coldest still wind months of the year. But that is not gasoline related.

Do not confuse H2O fog as pollution. San Francisco would really be in a jam.

Maybe diesel needs to be taken care of as well, but then again, the politics of fuels and money becomes a factor.

I have yet to find Rock River, Wyoming under a cloud of filthy polluted air... unless it is smoke from a fire blowing in from California. Even the Grand Canyon catches all of the smoke from the west coast brush fires. One thick haze having little to do with automobile exhaust.

To end this... I notice a difference in miles per gallon just from the fuel requirements of "saving the environment"...from what? I ask. And as the requirements for better mileage increases... the fuel quality... decreases.

What a wonderful system. And as the pollution of Asia blows across the Pacific Ocean... we pay.
__________________
Human Bean
Ray Eklund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 11:02 AM   #2
Rivet Master
 
Gearheart's Avatar
 
1973 Argosy 24
Kitchener , Ontario
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 945
Images: 1
Ethanol is like a "filler" in gas it has only 2 carbon molecules so it takes way less air and produces way less heat than gas. 20% is higher than I anticipated but not by much.
Gearheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 11:22 AM   #3
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,566
You shouldn't see a 20% increase in consumption on E10, but you could on E85. Ethanol has 33% less energy, so an E10 blend will result in about a 4% increase in consumption.

Don't blame environmental concerns for your ethanol contaminated gasoline. Blame the corn lobby if anyone.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 11:27 AM   #4
3 Rivet Member
 
dennis3751's Avatar
 
1976 29' Ambassador
Fitchburg , Wisconsin
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 174
Also adding ethanol is an "easier" way to increase the octane rating. Other chemicals like lead and MBTE are expensive and tough on the environment.

Dennis
dennis3751 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 11:38 AM   #5
Rivet Master
 
Gearheart's Avatar
 
1973 Argosy 24
Kitchener , Ontario
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 945
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
You shouldn't see a 20% increase in consumption on E10, but you could on E85. Ethanol has 33% less energy, so an E10 blend will result in about a 4% increase in consumption.

Don't blame environmental concerns for your ethanol contaminated gasoline. Blame the corn lobby if anyone.
The corn lobby is making millions in government subsidies on ethanol. Although the environmental benefits are minimal, it allows the Government to appear as if they are doing something for the environment.
Gearheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 12:12 PM   #6
Rivet Master
 
Ray Eklund's Avatar
 
2019 27' International
2014 25' International
2006 23' Safari SE
Boulder City , Nevada
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,703
From my youthful days in the early 1970's in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the weekend hot rodding days tried to catch the slight edge by getting the "freshest gasoline delivery" in Cheyenne. Usually it was some guy we knew working as a weekend mechanic that would get the word out... or maybe he was a great salesman on the side. The fresher the fuel, the slight edge at 6,000 feet elevation.

The six cylinder (300 cubic inch) XKE Jaguar would still beat me at the quarter mile with my 327 cubic inch 300 horse power.

I have noticed that at times, pulling my Tundra into our garage at Boulder City, NV and parking it... the exhaust fumes were rather... sharp and stinky. Something new to me. Sure is not my imagination as this is my smell sense and common sense to notice smells that are new.

At elevation a good gasoline is required. You know the times when the engine just seems to be... gutless after a refill? Happens in Missouri as well, when you want to accelerate and... putt... putt. Something is up.

The "budget stations" get their fuel from the same delivery to major stations... but what is left over after making their rounds. Sometimes... that cheap price might have some reason for wanting a few more buyers. I recall Hudson Oil in western Missouri had doctored their metering system to sell gasoline for less.... but the one gallon was less than a gallon. Maybe someone in Kansas City will remember that... shortage story.

We all take our gasoline as being fairly standard, but some... rumor or not... had what we termed, "shake and bake". Additives would be added and while the fuel truck traveled... it would shake and bake (mix). Someone might put that one fable to rest... or not?

Shell has added "nitrogen". It costs more, but maybe it helps. Costco uses nitrogen to inflate their tires and I think that works for me.

These refineries are rather complex and the oil used to make gasoline and light oils. Wyoming has a big one just east of Rawlins, Wyoming. Another in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Oklahoma and Texas... every street corner must have a refinery.

Much like a coal fired electrical plant... I do not know who to trust any longer. The "sulfur" dead zone north of some places in the Northeast from a power plant or gasoline refinery... do they exist today or even back then?

I learned one thing in my hot rodding days. If you are pulling a Holly four barrel carburetor off your engine... do not pour the excess gasoline into a styrofoam cup...
That I know. The rest... I haven't a clue.
__________________
Human Bean
Ray Eklund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 12:12 PM   #7
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis3751 View Post
Also adding ethanol is an "easier" way to increase the octane rating. Other chemicals like lead and MBTE are expensive and tough on the environment.

Dennis
Biggest issue with ethanol as an octane boost, to me, is that it isn't stable. As the ethanol collects water, and separates out in the tank, you get a resultant drop in the AKI, or octane rating.

I hunt out non-ethanol fuels. Partly for the improved quality, partly for the improved mileage, partly for the improved performance, and partly because I believe that using corn to produce motor fuels negatively impacts our food supply. When you add in the land use and water issues, and consider how much carbon you produced making the ethanol, you can't call ethanol in fuel an environmental benefit, IMO.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 12:17 PM   #8
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Eklund View Post
At elevation a good gasoline is required.
Good fuel is always a good idea. Fresh is good. But at higher elevations, there is actually less of a requirement for higher octane ratings. The problem becomes if you purchase 85 AKI (regular) at altitude, where it works as well as 87 does at sea level, and then drive down to sea level and still have it in your tank.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2016, 12:39 PM   #9
Rivet Master
 
McDave's Avatar
 
2014 23' Flying Cloud
Fair Oaks , California
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 717
"Do not confuse H2O fog as pollution. San Francisco would really be in a jam."

No, due to the prevailing winds from the west, all of SF's junk just gets blown over to Sacramento , so we end up being the ones in a jam, while SF brags about its great air quality.


Sent from my iPad using Airstream Forums
McDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 07:02 AM   #10
3 Rivet Member
 
2014 25' Flying Cloud
New Ashford , Massachusetts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 236
We have seen the same decrees in MPG with our diesel. 16.5 towing untill we reach the mid west and all diesel becomes a bio blend up to 20% (according to the label on the pumps) then we drop to 14.5. About a 12.5% LOSS. I did not notice an appreciable drop in power, but did loose MPG's. I fully expected to gain MPG as we got to the corn belt and lost the hills of the EAST or mountains of the WEST but I believe the fuel was the issue. I was surprised to see all over the road diesel in the mid west having some type of BIO blend amount. I can not imagine the MPG loss to go full BIO DIESEL or E85 gasoline.

You have to love the greenheads, lets use bio fuels so we don't burn "dirty" fossil fuels. But I have to burn more of the BIO fuel and get less MPG? The greenheads don't want to talk about reality. Just like putting all the pollution control devices on the diesels so I went from a truck getting 25mpg to one getting 17mpg, Makes no sense to me to have to use 50% more fuel to go the same distance. I guess the more fuel I have to buy the more fuel taxes I pay. NOT THAT MONEY IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT DOES ANYTHING

Joe D
Dexterpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 07:29 AM   #11
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,014
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
I have found crossing the border into Canada increases mileage by 2-3 mpg.
85 octane fuel is not available in many places out west. The Tundra requires 87 so it is not a problem. Notice I call it fuel and not gasoline.
Back in the last century before ethanol I could leave gas in my farm tractors all winter and it would not deteriorate like the fuels we have today.
Is this progress?
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 07:39 AM   #12
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,655
Images: 5
Let me straighten this out, from my professional experience.

E10 is completely an EPA thing - no lobby. It is added strictly as an oxigenate to lower emissions. MTB was used prior to E10 (with timing overlap) but it was found to be a carcinogen, and was subsequently banned.

E85 is an effort to reduce oil consumption and carries a lot of social and political ramifications. You can point to many corners of the debate for the "push". Corn lobby is just one of those corners.

E85, practically, reduces fuel mileage 15 - 20%, depending on particular engine family and manufacturer.

Pumps labeled as E85 can have as little as 70% (or so) ethanol, and as high as 90% ethanol. This varies by season and the price of ethanol vs. gasoline. Some blenders will "push" the limits based on economics at the time.

Most E85 capable engines (flex fuel) will note no performance issues unless ethanol content goes above 90%.

Ethanol gets a bad rap, from a performance standpoint....which it does not deserve.

Ethanol gets a bad rap for many social and political reasons.....which is arguably valid.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 08:13 AM   #13
Rivet Master
 
lsbrodsky's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB International
Trent Woods , North Carolina
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,120
Despite what Rich says, I find that I absolutely get 10% better mileage on fuel with no ethanol. I have found that often enough that I believe my data. My truck has the 5.3 liter flex fuel designation.

Larry
lsbrodsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 08:19 AM   #14
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,655
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsbrodsky View Post
Despite what Rich says, I find that I absolutely get 10% better mileage on fuel with no ethanol. I have found that often enough that I believe my data. My truck has the 5.3 liter flex fuel designation.

Larry
I didn't comment on E10...an omission.

Like the reasons for E85, E10 can be upwards of E15, for the same reasons stated for E85.

My experience, over the long haul, with GM flex fuel engines has been closer to the 5% area (by the testing of content method) for true E10. When it creeps toward E15, it is more like 7 - 8%. HOWEVER, and I state it again, it will vary by engine design....even within manufacturers, but not by more than a couple %, in my experience. The difference in manufacturers CAN be more or less, but not by a huge margin.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 10:50 AM   #15
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,566
I calculate 4% increase in consumption for E10, and see about that in practice. It is hard to validate, though, as the actual ethanol percentage isn't usually known (you have to test for it). That is because of the blending pumps, and variable supply chains. In practice, it car vary week to week due to different fuel suppliers. When driving a vehicle that requires premium 91, which is labelled around here at up to 5% ethanol, I try and use 94 with no ethanol and then I notice improved mileage. If the cost difference is 4% or less I go for it.

The performance issues with ethanol usually aren't related to having a small amount of ethanol, and fresh fuel. The performance issues relate to having an unknown and larger percentage of ethanol due to a lack of control in the distribution system, and fuel that isn't fresh. Ethanol is a direct contributor to that degradation of fuel quality relating to moisture, and subsequent AKI reduction. That is the biggest reason why I give it a thumbs down. Secondary reasons include the energy balance when you consider how much energy is used to produce the ethanol, and the greenhouse gas emissions that result when that ethanol is produced from power produced by coal fired plants.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 11:09 AM   #16
Rivet Master
 
KJRitchie's Avatar
 
2008 25' Classic
Full Time , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,309
I wonder what the emissions measure out the tail pipe of a car using E85 vs E15 vs no ethanol unleaded. Aren't the catalytic converters on our cars and trucks working anymore?

Kelvin
__________________
2008 Classic 25fb "Silver Mistress"
2015 Ram 2500 6.7L Cummins. Crew Cab, 4x4, Silver
KJRitchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 11:34 AM   #17
4 Rivet Member
 
B00merang's Avatar
 
2010 20' Flying Cloud
Hailey , Idaho
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 414
"Ethanol is lousy for a fuel when you figure the cost per mile driven. I cannot wait for the day when the brightest in environmental research discover that refined pure gasoline, today, is much superior in many ways."

Mister Ray, you answered your own question as follows "........ but then again, the politics of fuels and money becomes a factor.

Its not just the "brightest" (and don't even mention boat owners that hate ethanol)that discovered that ethanol is a miserable fuel....but as long as we have the lobbyists
you'll see no change. jon
B00merang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 11:42 AM   #18
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,655
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJRitchie View Post
I wonder what the emissions measure out the tail pipe of a car using E85 vs E15 vs no ethanol unleaded. Aren't the catalytic converters on our cars and trucks working anymore?

Kelvin
Different gasses....Cats reduce hydrocarbons and sulfur. Ethanol reduces CO2.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 12:06 PM   #19
New Member
 
Currently Looking...
Louisville , Kentucky
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Having traveled extensively in and out of Colorado over the last 40 years, I've noticed a significant increase in gas mileage while there. That's in spite of using Regular at only 85 octane.

The high altitude in Colorado increases gas mileage in two ways: less air drag and an effectively smaller engine size for non-turbo cars (the opposite of an effectively larger engine size from a turbo). Less air, less fuel, less horsepower. The more effective the computer controlled air/fuel mixture the more efficient, so there have been dramatic improvements in gas mileage at high altitudes since the 1970's.

For example, several years ago we drove a Honda Civic to CO. We usually got 29 in town & 37mpg driving 77mph here in the Midwest (I drive too fast), but at 82mph on I-25 & I-40 in CO we got 44mpg. Used another full tank while staying in the San Juan's (10,000ft plus) at much lower speeds and got 48mpg(!) even with all the elevation changes. Engine response was pathetic, though!

Turbo's are wonderful at high altitude; done that too. But even turbo's get better gas mileage (when not towing up mountains) due to decreased drag at high altitude.

So, while quality of fuel is a factor, I think the higher elevations in CO are a more significant factor in the increased gas mileage you've noticed.

-John
recreation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2016, 12:16 PM   #20
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,655
Images: 5
Let's discuss Ethanol as a fuel. I am not interested in discussion the political nor social ramifications, as I and we can't fix that here.

It is a good fuel (Indy cars run 100%...and run like a scalded dog). However, the handling and storage of ethanol can be problematic when due diligence isn't followed...just like diesel and gasoline, BTW.

Ethanol is hygroscopic. It absorbs and locks up water molecules to the ethanol molecules. It can absorb water vapor from the air and absorb liquid water, if added to a container of ethanol....up to its saturation point. E10, at it's saturation point, will not contain enough water to affect starting and operation of the engine (possible exception of carburetors). E85 with water up to its saturation point will likely cause starting and operation issues...especially with carburetors.

Now, let's discuss WHY there is water in ANY fuel:

All automobiles since 1996 have sealed fuel systems, so absorption from the atmosphere is impossible. (if you have an unsealed fuel system for more than a few minutes, a service engine soon light will illuminate). If water is in the fuel at any significant level, it came from upstream of your car or fuel container. (ie. gas station or distribution channel). If you store your small engine fuel in a sealed container, same applies.

If you have a small amount of liquid water in your tank, ethanol is actually beneficial, as it will absorb it, pass it through the pick up sock (motor vehicles) and burn it, instead of letting it accumulate to the point that the sock is covered and no fuel gets to your engine. If you have water in a non-starting engine's fuel tank after pumping it out...it's not because of ethanol. It's because an amount of liquid water has been pumped into your tank in excess of the amount of the saturation point of the ethanol present. ETHANOL CANNOT ABSORB NOR ATTRACT MORE WATER THAN IT CAN HOLD AT IT'S SATURATION POINT. You would be in the same exact situation whether there was 100% gasoline or diesel present in the tank.

As far as boats.....everything above still applies, with some additional complications.

1) there are still a lot of carbureted boats around.
2) if those carburetors (small engines as well, like generators, etc.) haven't had a rebuild in the last 25 years, they still may have soft parts which are susceptible to deformation and degradation. A carb rebuild with modern carb kits will fix that.
3) I am not sure that even new boats are sealed at their fuel cap or if they are still vented. Vented caps can allow for water to be absorbed over time, if the fuel ins't turned over frequently.
4) marinas are WET and humid. There is much more opportunity for liquid water to enter the delivery and storage systems.

I have always run E10 in both of my outboards with zero issues....but they have both been rebuilt (1966 Merc 6hp and 1971 Johnson 9.5hp), both live at home, carbs are run dry after each outing, and my 6 gallon tank is sealed when not in operation.

If I had a boat that lived at the marina, I also, would not use ethanol. That environment is too risky....but that isn't the fuels fault, per se.

I know I'm missing some points here, but that's the truth in a nutshell.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scrub Factor tvanwave Wheels, Hubs & Bearings 0 12-31-2011 08:40 PM
Towing fudge factor hitman007 Sprinter and B-van Forum 4 09-29-2011 04:50 PM
Auxilary Fuel (gasoline) Tank? DGJackson 1970-79 Tradewind 3 08-18-2011 10:44 PM
Gasoline Can For Generator Fuel PARKS1963 Generators & Solar Power 9 08-12-2006 08:14 PM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.