Dallas/Ft Worth is in the process of changing over to the newer re-formulated gasolines with up to 10% ethanol for fewer emissions. Is there any expected diff with perf or mileage on the VQ?

 

mileage yeah...im getting about 2-3 mpg less already...this was observed over 3 tanks so far

 

Here in Illinois we have a little sign on the gas pump that states that "gas contains up to 10% ethanol."

Yes it will lower your mpg b/c of the ethanol content, but not significantly. The majority of your fill up is still gasoline.

The difference is the amount of BTU's that ethanol gives off compared to gasoline.

 

IIRC, E10 burns a bit cooler due to the alcohol.
Gasoline has 125,000 BTU/US Gal
E10 has 120,900 BTU/US Gal

 

so how is the savings calculated. I have not looked intothis too much but seems if we are filling up more frequently then we are not doing much for the enviroment by using this new formulation.

 

i can careless about gas mileage but heard that it burns cleaner yet reduces performance. probably minimal.

 

my thoughts are yeah it might be burning cleaner but if we are burning more of it then the net gain must be close to zero or worse

 

I just thought I'd throw this into the discussion. They started using 10% ethanol over here about a month ago. One week after they switched, my CEL light came on and threw a code for catalyisis efficiency, I cleared the code and it has not come back since. Also my 4runner thew a CEL light this weekend, I need to check it out. Coincidence, maybe. But I think this new gas sucks.

 

Here in the midwest, or at least South Dakota, 10% ethanol has been around for years. It has never effected any of my cars negatively. My mileage is still 25-26mpg during steady state hwy and 19-20mpg in the city, the same route if I use 91 premium. Up here, Ethanol has an Octane rating of 92, premium is either 91 or 93. 10% ethanol 92 is cheaper than 91 octane.

 

I've had to use the "crap gas," as it is known in the Metro Milwaukee area, for many years. In the two and half years of it in my G, I've noticed a 1 to 3 MPG decrease, but no other noticable problems.

My wife's car, a 98 Chevy Blazer has had injector problems. In fact, injector related issues have increased more than 3X of pre-RFG in the Metro Milwaukee area.

Do yourself a favor, buy your gas from "Top Tier" gas stations to avoid gas related issues. (http://www.toptiergas.com) In addition, burn premium. Your engine will stay cleaner and perfom better.

 

Just so you guys know where I'm coming from, I'm an environmental scientist and I spend a lot of time investigating groundwater/soil contamination issues related to fueling stations, storage tanks, spill sites, etc. I can tell you MTBE is a nasty contaminant and once it gets into the groundwater, it is very hard to remove with a remediation system. The ground (ie soil, rocks) serves as a natural filter. Unfortunately this filtering system can't pull out MTBE. The only real way to remove it is to evaporate the water. FYI, groundwater is much of what we drink due to our dependance on water wells and rivers. This is why MTBE is such a problem.

What's frustrating to me is that MTBE was a government mandated additive so that fuels would burn cleaner, however the emission data suggests otherwise. It really hasn't worked at all and now we have polluted groundwater sources thanks to leaking underground storage tanks. Luckily, in 1998, the Federal government mandated changes in underground storage tank construction which required double-walled tanks, leak detection, etc. Most of the leaking storage tank sites have now been cleaned up and the leaking sources removed.

Ethanol, while a neat concept of using renewable energy, is a farce IMO. It's benefits are largely the result of ethanol lobbying in Washington. Ethanol has lots of downsides and many of them are contrary to what the general public is being told (think MTBE):

1) Ethanol has less energy per unit hence it will take more ethanol go the same distance as oil. That means you will most likely see reduced MPGs.

2) Ethanol cannot be transported in pipelines therefore it has to be trucked/barged/railed across the nation. We're talking lots of shipping here and this means more fuel required for shippment.

3) Ethanol requires a lot of process energy to produce. The field has to plowed, the seed planted, fertlilzer applied, the grain harvested, shipped to the bin storage and processed, loaded on to truck/rail, shipped to a ethanol processing plant, and then it's shipped.

4) Ethanol may hurt engine components on earliers model cars. Most owners manuals I've read state not to use anything more than 8-10% ethanol and most auto makers say to avoid it if you can.

5) Ethanol, like MTBE, is water soluble. That means once it's in the water, it's damn hard to remove. Think of the environmental implications if a 50,000 gallon rail tanker ruptured and leaked into a lake. We're talking major environmental impacts and heavily damaged ecosystem.

If we really want to reduce our consumption of oil, we need to force the auto makers to do it. The technology is there to improve gas mileage dramatically without impacting performance. The auto industry has ALWAYS been resistant to change and will always tout the "it's too expensive and not feasible" line. They did this with seat belts, emissions controls, hybrids, airbags, etc. The industry is in the business to build cars that people want. Until people start buying and demanding higher MPG cars/trucks, the industry isn't going to do it.

 

Wow, very insightful, thanks

 

Nice post DaveB. Common sense tells me that 'watering' down our gas is not going to help anything. High gas prices should help people buy more efficient cars which will change what kind of cars are produced in the future.