I did the mileage thing then and was getting 16.08 mpg from E10 87 octane gas. That's my everyday driving, some in town and some at highway speed.
This morning I refilled it with non-ethanol and saw my gas mileage went up a whopping .6 miles to 16.68 mpg, a very slight improvement. Woo-hoo. So much for saving money burning pure gas.
While the mileage didn't improve enough to make it worth my while, the increase in performance was noticeable. When I fired it up at the gas station the first time, about 30 seconds later, just enough time for the fuel in the filter and gas line to clear, the idle smoothed out nicely. It wasn't idling rough to begin with, but there was a slight improvement. Pulling out on the road, I reached my highway speed faster.
So there's that.
And in case you're wondering, I'm driving a 2001 F-150 with a new 5.4 liter Triton engine that has about 2500 miles on it.
I know, I know. I had the shop drop that long block in there back in January, and I've only put 2500 miles on it so far. I can't afford to drive the damned thing. Hell, I haven't even done my first oil change on it yet.
Fuck Joe Biden.
My 2001 F150 went from 20-21 mpg on real gas to 15-15.5 on moonshine fuel. Put a small trailer behind it and pray for 13. To hell with ethanol. It's got a 4.6L (281 cubic inch) V8, still has the same water pump and alternator. I've replaced the fuel pump at 168,000 miles, and two coils over the years. Nothing else ever went wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems with ethanol in a car engine, is that it screws up the fuel computer. Since the ethanol and gas aren't mixed together at the refinery, the ethanol is stored separately at the gas station and mixed at the pump. No two stations or pumps run at the same rate and so the percentage of ethanol delivered varies widely. Compare it again after driving a few hundred miles, better yet, disconnect the battery or otherwise reset the fuel computer.
ReplyDeleteI had a 2003 Element that gave me 28mpg before they started mixing ethanol into the fuel. When my area went over to 10% mix, my mileage went down to 22mpg.
Years later I went out of state for a few weeks, and was fueling with pure gas. Shortly afterward my mileage went back to 28 mpg. Only to return to it's dismal performance when I returned home.
I've had similar results with my 2006 Element. I have a fleet station nearby where I can get 93 Octane ethanol-free. On the highway between Charleston and Columbia I get 28-30 MPG. With E-15 I get 22-25.
DeleteIts not blended at the station its blended at the terminal where its loaded on the truck.
DeleteProbably should have changed it twice by now. A lot of break in wear happens
ReplyDeletein the first thousand miles. My opinion, others may think different.
I took it in to have the oil changed at 500 miles and they told me no, it was broke in on a dyno and already had its first oil change and to come back when it had 3000 miles on it.
DeleteTheir shop, their warranty.
Let's keep burning our own food supply, fucking libertard morons.
ReplyDeleteI have a 2018 pacifica mini van and it runs much better on the non-ethanol Probably get a extra 60 miles per tank. Price difference is a killer though.
ReplyDeleteI have a 2011 Tacoma I bought new. Back in 2017 the price difference where I lived was .25 cents. I figured what the heck, I'll pay the extra 5 bucks at fill up to not have to run the ethanol. I never checked the mileage though. Sometime later the price differential went to 60 cents a gallon. Back to the ethanol.
ReplyDeleteI have a 2011 F-150 Flex Fuel. I don't see enough difference in MPG to justify spending more for pure gasoline that costs an additional .40 to .50 per gallon in my area. However, I did run the E-85 alcohol fuel in it once, and the MPG dropped enough that it wasn't worth the savings. It went from 18 to 20 MPG on the highway down to 14 to 15 MPG using E-85, not to mention how much power was lost when using it.
ReplyDeleteUntil I retired a few months ago, I was rocking one ton dual rear wheel diesel trucks for 22 years. Sold the fifth wheel me and the old lady traveled job to job in in December and in April some crazy person bought my 2013 King Ranch for an insane amount of money. I bought a new hybrid Escape and am getting between 42 and 45 miles to the gallon. I have absolutely no illusions of saving the planet, but I am saving myself a shitload of money. And the old lady still has her F-150, so we have a good truck if we need it. She still gets around 18 mpg, so we still suffer a bit at the pump, but nowhere near what it was with the one ton. Eod1sg Ret
ReplyDeleteLisa's parents bought a new SUV last year, so they sold us their 2012 Toyota Sienna minivan for a can't-pass-this-up price because Lisa has a hard time getting in and out of my truck. It's embarrassing as hell to be seen driving it but it gets 25 mpg in town, so I suck it up and drive that most of the time.
DeleteI've known quite a few guys that, over time, buy their wife a new vehicle and then end up driving the wife's old vehicle as a beater until it no longer runs. I did that too, way back. Seems the trade-in value of a mini-van is next to squat, so lots of guys had a mini-van as their beater. So they yank out all the seats and there you go. Plenty of room to haul a bunch of stuff and still get decent mileage.
DeleteI’m way past giving a shit about what people think about me based on the vehicle I drive or how I dress or look. Just trying to stretch retirement money as far as I can. I couldn’t bring myself to driving a Prius, but I am digging this escape. The dog freaks out when we start moving without any noise, but she has more room in the back with the seat folded down. We’re both good!
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side (in a cold winter climate), I haven't had the gas line/filter freeze up since ethanol was first introduced.
ReplyDelete(Old Tech) Fuel is fuel. A given amount of a type of fuel has only so many BTUs of potential energy in it. A gallon of 87 octane gasoline has more BTUs in it than a gallon of ethanol. Both will combust, yet the difference in power and maintenance further down the line are vastly different.
ReplyDeleteDrove a 1.6l 75hp Volkswagen for several years, 30 mpg w/ regular to 25 mpg with E85. That's 15% more when e85 was good ⅓ cheaper.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat less power and less torque, but cleaner oil with longer intervals. Better results on engines with a higher compression ratio.
YMMV
VW guy again, forgot the RTWT
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
Happy birthday and greets from Heilbronn area ;)
"difference in maintance cost"....as in ethanol will wear out your engine faster????
ReplyDeletei have an '09 chevy cobalt with 145k miles on it. it has had ZERO maintance issues for the engine, and has run only E10 fuel. any engine built in the 70's or 80's that ran non ethanol, leaded gas would have been in the junk yard, or compleatly rebuilt by now. and i expect the cobalt to be good for another 50k befor it's put down. old school engines were good for 100k-150k max
Meh. My F-150 had 200k on it when I had that engine done.
DeleteYo can't give ethanol that credit for engine longevity. You also have to think about better metallurgy, more efficient engine design as well as more frequent oil changes. Remember when the recommended oil change was at 10,000 miles? Now it's 3000 and I think that has more to do with it than ethanol gas. Matter of fact, I think all of the above mentioned does a hell of a lot to combat ethanol wear and tear.
My 1997 Ranger 2.3L gets much better fuel mileage with non E gas, almost enough to offset the usual $1.00 per gallon (around here) difference right now. When E10 was $2.00 per gallon it didn't work out. If they go to E15 here I'll have to use non E. It seems that something that is under powered does much better on non E as far as mileage increase.
ReplyDeleteYour truck is just loafing with the 5.4 engine until you hook up a trailer or load it with a ton or so, then you would notice the fuel mileage difference.
As for longevity, the fuel management and spark controls and low tension rings make more difference than anything else. With precisely metered and ignited fuel, you have less soot etc getting past the rings into the crankcase, extending oil change intervals and causing less wear.
E10 will keep the injectors cleaner ( and carburetors, but the E will attack the rubber in the needle and seat and the accelerator pump) , but I have seen an increase in a nasty sticky gooey buildup in the intake ports ( especially om "LS" GM engines). This stuff looks almost like deposits from sugar in the tank, just soft instead of hard.
The newer direct injected gas engines are having major problems with carbon buildup ( from the egr) in the intake ports causing air flow problems and requiring cleaning.
This is my business, by the way. I have been an automotive machinist for 39 years.
You mean I was partly right about the more efficient engine design???!!!
DeleteThanks so much for your input. I love it when people chime in with their experience in the trades.
Yes!
DeleteAnd happy birthday!
The American manufacturers did a lot of work to catch up as far as the mechanical side of things to the Japanese .
One major mechanical change was to go back to the 1950's and earlier designs of "under square" engines. This is a smaller bore and longer stroke set up to make more torque. (Horse power is great, but torque is what gets the work done.)
They also have less emissions than an "over square" engine such as a 302 Ford, 360 Dodge, 350 Chevrolet or any of the big blocks.
The Slant 6 and 318 Dodge were under square and would just run and run (with less ring and cylinder wear ) most of the time until the car fell apart around them. Most of the Japanese engines were under square, as are the big diesels ( road tractors, farm and construction engines,etc) .
Ethanol is nothing but a step backwards in most ways for most applications. Alcohol is higher octane, but has about 60% of the BTU's of gasoline. Adding another 5% will only make the fuel give less work and the price won't drop one bit.
It does burn cooler, so E85 is popular with tuned turbocharged engine builders. Methanol is somewhat popular in drag racing and has been used for decades in Indy cars, but it takes almost twice as much volume as gasoline.
To Cannon:
DeleteYou are comparing apples to oranges.
Please read my comments above and I want to add this.
You are right that 100k to 150k miles was about it for most old engines, although many could be re ringed without a re bore or crank regrinding. Add a new timing chain and oil pump, rod and main bearings and a rebuild on the heads and you would be good to go another 100k or so. Small block Chevrolets and all Pontiacs would need a new camshaft and lifters if you wanted to get that 100k though.
A point I forgot to mention to my earlier posts was the increase in operating temperature from 180*or 190* upwards to 210* or so. A cold running engine does not burn fuel as well as a hot one, and will wear the rings and cylinder walls at an increased rate.Running at 160* or less will wear out things even faster.
Big time race cars (NASCAR Cup cars and that league) have been running 220* or so for years to get every last bit of power they can. But until recently it wasn't possible to do that on a production car.
Carburetors for a grocery getter were always working at a compromise to keep it alive. A race car can be tuned to a narrow power band at certain rpms to get the maximum performance at its intended usage. With modern fuel and spark management systems, it can constantly be varied to suit the conditions it is operating in and can run almost on the ragged edge of detonation ( pinging or the misnamed "valve rattle").
Back to your apple and my orange.
A 1960's engine didn't have hardened valve seats or chrome plated valve stems and depended on the leaded gas to protect them from wear. The oils for a 1960's engine were contaminated by the lead and soot from the excessive fuel from the compromise that a carburetor is. Most of the American manufacturers started hardening the seats and plating the stems about 1972, possibly anticipating unleaded gas.
You Cobalt has an aluminum head with a hardened seat insert in it from the day it was designed, along with chrome plated stems and probably hardened valve guides to cut down on wear, so the likely hood of needing a valve job because of wear is much less. This is one of the many changes to modern engines that have increased their durability.
Changes to oils allowed them to run ever thinner oils and tighter clearances.
However, modern oils are not suitable for older engines as they have no additives ( ZZDP) to prevent wear on flat tappet cams. If your vehicle is pre 1985 or has a flat tappet cam ( non roller cam) you should run either a SF rated oil (modern oils are rated SM and SN) or a bottle of ZZDP additive.
If you have a question, just ask, I'll try to help.
However, I am an automotive machinist. I know engines, but not too much other wise as far as electronics. I can't trouble shoot your car, sorry.
I have a 2000 Chrysler sedan that goes from about 24 to 28 mpg on non ethanol. Handy computer built in mpg calculator tracks it in the car.
ReplyDelete