Technical > Automotive > 0 % ethanol gas

0 % ethanol gas

Using your figure of 40 miles difference, assuming a 16 gallon gas tank, you are getting 2.5 miles more per gallon on pre-10%. (40 miles over 16 gallons)

If that 2.5 miles per gallon is worth the difference in cost between what the normal fuel you get and the 0% stuff is, then yes.

If not, then no.

The -actual- math is yours to figure out since I had to make some assumptions based on your info but you should have the baseline idea to run with.

reply to fartness
Making a lot of anecdotal assumptions, here goes...

If using that 0% ethanol will get you back to 22/26, and you're getting 18/20 now let's call that a rough 20% increase in mileage (for round numbers).

So if the gas is less than 20% more expensive, you win.

Assuming that gas is $4.00 a gallon, that puts the 20% breakeven point at $4.80 a gallon. So if the 0% is only $4.50, you're ahead.

At least that's how I would figure it. But I might be completely off base. Someone kindly refute me if I am.

reply to fartness
Next thing, will I see better mileage?

Current places have UP TO 10% ethanol. I'm guessing Mobile has more ethanol than other places, since I always get worse mileage when I go there.

Some will say no you won't get better MPG some will say yes you do.
I'm in the camp of you should. On my 2004 F-250 if I used E-10 I got consistently 10.5MPG if I used E-0 I got 12-12.5.

As for stations with more or less ethanol they all pretty much use the full 10%, your mpg difference most likely has something to do with additives. While all the gas is refined at the same place not all have the same additive pack.

My Fords recommend BP and I have found that when I use BP my mpg is fractionally better but well within the error percentage.
--
In need of a Vegas vacation.

reply to fartness
Yes, you will see better mileage as described previously by the others. One other benefit to using pure gas is, it doesn't degrade the rubber parts of the system like ethanol does.

Having used both, I can say my vehicle performs far better on pure, than the 10% crap. Idle, acceleration, etc. are all better. It's my first choice.
--
Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

reply to fartness
Even if I go with my gas light on, will I have to run it a few tanks since it will still have E10 in it?

I have a 2012 Subaru Legacy also... would running regular gas in it likely not do much since it was probably designed with E10 in mind? I didn't see E10 in most places around here until 2005 or 2006 or so.

The E10 will be diluted on filling (when near empty) to the point where it'll probably be more like E1, as in 1%. The next fill will be virtually pure gas.

The Subaru designed for E10 has fuel components designed for the ethanol, and will not degrade. The mileage will improve, though. Why? Ethanol has less BTU's than gasoline does.
--
Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

reply to fartness
Hmm. pre e10 you got 320, now you get 280. Running the numbers, your range dropped around 12%. This means your range dropped *more* than the level of ethanol in your gas. Even if the ethanol contained no energy (it does), your range would not drop that much.

Assuming that ethanol has, say 70% the energy that gas has, your range shouldn't drop more than 3%, if my math is right.

Something else is going on if your range dropped that much.
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm."

reply to fartness
When I can find ethanol free gas I usually get 10-12% better gas milage.

Here's a list: »pure-gas.org/

reply to fartness
It's possible that if it's been a long time since you drove with 100% gasoline, your engine and drive train could have changed in efficiency due to wear, tires, filters, plugs, tuning etc. so I'd try a comparative test over a shorter period of time.

I had a similar question with my Avalon when I got it - whether 89 octane was more cost effective than 87 octane.

I did a comparative study by trying four or five consecutive tanks of one and four or five consecutive tanks of the other, keeping the same driving patterns. Then I compared mileage and cost per mile. It was all ethanol mix, so that variable was eliminated. I made sure I had good air filter and tires were properly inflated over the test period.

It turned out that I calculated a roughly 10% improvement with 89 octane over 87 octane, so I concluded that if 89 octane was less than 10% additional cost of 87 octane, my cost per mile was less.

It isn't going to be a laboratory-level test since temperature, humidity and variables in traffic can alter results, but it can be helpful enough to make a decision.

reply to fartness
On the 10% mix my motorcyle will tourque wheelie (WOT Launch +quick shift) in first in second gear.

On 91 octane it will also loft the front tire in third gear.

Well worth the price of admission to me!
--
Protect your right to keep and arm bears!

reply to fartness
The manual also says only use 87... would using 89 or 91 hurt?

No. The higher octane just prevents premature detonation. You can almost always use a higher octane than recommended, but should not use a lower octane than recommended. *except in some cases such as high altitudes, etc...

reply to Juggernaut

Precisely my point. I prefer pure gas, as stated.

reply to fartness

reply to Jackal1
Since all new cars have fuel sensors a lower octane will not do anything to the car as the sensor can detect and correct the fuel/air mixture.