gas with ethanol in it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maude @ Apr 12 2007, 07:11 AM) [snapback]421954[/snapback]</div>

I am also a new owner of an 07 Prius and with my first tank of gas pulled down an average of about 54 mpg, went on vacation and filled up at Speedway and got 50 MPG all highway at mostly 70 MPH. My next tank was from Sheetz and the mileage tanked to the lower 40's.

I have read from a few posts that Shell Gas gives you better gas mileage so I am going to try them next.

 

Ethanol has less energy than petrol so it'll ding your gas mileage a bit. Temperature fluxuations can have an even more pronounced effect. Petrol, however, is petrol. All vendors must meet certain specs. The differences are detergents and the like that are added. They don't increase the energy content of a gallon of petrol however so I seriously doubt that one seller's will yield better MPG than the next. Oh, and periodically check you tyre pressure. Under inflated tyre's will kill your MPG.

 

we have 10% ethanol year round here and it will ding ya, but on average only about a mile per gallon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(morpheusx @ Apr 12 2007, 08:11 AM) [snapback]421971[/snapback]</div>

Even if Shell gas is identical to every other brand of gas I don't think you can beat the 5% rebate on their MasterCard and the $10 bonus they are now offering. Stop by the station before buying gas and pick up an application.

 

Thanks, Maude, I was just going to ask this same question.

In Iowa, we have a state subsidy on Ethanol blends, so it is actually cheaper than the non-ethanol (although usually only a cent or two). The octane is also higher on the Ethanol. I'm so used to buying it because it's cheaper, but then I thought of three things:

1. Am I actually paying more after figuring in the lower mpg?
2. I read somewhere on here that you shouldn't use higher octane gas. I think the Ethanol blend is 89 instead of 87. Is this bad for the Prius?
3. On the other hand, even as unproven and controversial as it is, maybe I do want to keep buying Ethanol to promote alternatives to petroleum.

Any thoughts?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Apr 12 2007, 09:17 PM) [snapback]422340[/snapback]</div>

Supposedly the e10 results in lower emissions despite loss of FE, has anyone seen a study to prove this? If so, I would buy the e10 over a non-blend if I had the choice regardless of cost difference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(douglas001001 @ Apr 12 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]422374[/snapback]</div>

Prior to e10, gasoline in most of the country had MTBE as an additive. MTBE seemed to do a little better at reducing emissions I believe, but was much more harmful in the environment due to underground tank/piping leaks and spills. Here is one study by Toyota from 2000 comparing gasoline with MTBE to e10. I'd be interested to see some more recent data if its out there. The other problem to keep in mind with ethanol is that it generally takes more energy to extract it from corn than you can get out of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Highly ImPriused @ Apr 13 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]422542[/snapback]</div>

The production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol. The most recent findings show that corn ethanol fuel is energy efficient and yields an energy output:input ratio of 1.6.

Some more info here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hovprius @ Apr 13 2007, 08:47 AM) [snapback]422667[/snapback]</div>

the energy ratio is "better" than with gas, but not feasible. still waaaay too much oil needed to produce the corn. plus, any significant contribution of ethanol will simply starve us. now granted, a large (pun intended) portion of the us populace needs a bit of starvation, but with the uncertainity of GW, i dont think diverting food sources in a significant way is a good idea.

there has been a lot of progress in converting biomass waste (non food cellulose matter) to ethanol and several pilot studies in WA state are under way to look at large quantities on a long term scale for feasibility. i think that is probably the better way to go.

 

Gasoline has 125,000 BTU/(US) Gallon
Ethanol has 84,600 BTU/Gallon
E10 has 120,900 BTU/Gal

Number Crunching yields 3.28% less energy per gallon of E10 than gallon of Gasoline, which is right in line with my calculations of the mileage loss with E10.

Translation, if you get 55 MPG with Gasoline you would theoretically get 53.2 MPG with E10.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(douglas001001 @ Apr 12 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]422374[/snapback]</div>

Consider This (Attached the file that Highly referenced in case link goes):

Summary

And This:

Ethanol Challenges for PZEV

Home Topics Monthly Archives Resources

Ford Unveils Flex-Fuel Hybrid Research Vehicle
25 January 2006

Escape Hybrid E85
At the Washington Auto Show, Ford unveiled the Ford Escape Hybrid E85, a version of its Escape hybrid with a flexible-fuel engine capable of running either gasoline or ethanol blends of up to 85% (E85).

The research vehicle is the first from a major car company to actually mate the two technologies (flexible-fuel engines and hybrid powertrains) together, although the potential of the combination is being increasingly mentioned by policymakers.

As a leader in both hybrid vehicles and in vehicles capable of operating on ethanol-based fuels, Ford is the ideal company to bring both technologies together for the first time.

This innovative research program could lead to breakthroughs to significantly reduce our nation’s dependence on imported oil while also helping to address global climate change.

The Ford Escape Hybrid would produce about 25% less carbon dioxide if operated exclusively on E85 fuel instead of gasoline, according to the company.

Ford engineers working on the Escape Hybrid E85 research project are seeking not only to optimize the efficiency of the new powertrain, but also to resolve some emissions issues.

Although Ford engineers have achieved very low tailpipe emissions with FFVs, evaporative emissions remain a challenge. Some blends of ethanol are much more volatile than gasoline, so a more aggressive evaporative system is necessary.

A full hybrid application presents additional evaporative challenges, because the vehicle often operates on electric power alone without actuating the evaporative vacuum system that operates when the gasoline engine is in use.

Ford engineers are pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge with the goal of achieving partial zero-emissions vehicle (PZEV) status. No FFV has yet been certified to this extremely clean standard, because of the evaporative requirement in the PZEV standard.

Ford researchers are applying some of the best expertise in the industry in hybrid power controls, flexible fuel operation and exhaust after-treatment. We’re working on the whole system, from the fuel tank through to the tailpipe, to optimize fuel efficiency and lower emissions.

We are seeking innovations to eliminate the release of fuel vapors from the vehicle. We’re working to further improve the efficiency of our systems that trap and consume fuel vapors while also working on ideas to prevent the generation of vapor in the first place.

---

And you wonder why the Prius has a Bladder?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Apr 13 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]422721[/snapback]</div>

I know the jury is still out on how effecient corn-based ethanol is as a fuel source. However, I think it may be a necessary step in our technology towards what you're talking about, like biomass waste, etc. After all, if we build the infrastructure to supply and the vehicles to use corn-ethanol, then the system is already in place when the technology for biomass is perfected.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Apr 13 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]422726[/snapback]</div>

So with your numbers, I really am getting screwed on FE. If the price is the same or 1 cent cheaper for E10, but I get a 3% decrease in FE, I in effect am paying about 8-9 cents more for a $3 gallon of gas.

Does the higher octane offset this at all?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Apr 13 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]423077[/snapback]</div>

No, even in typical FFVs they aren't able to take advantage. However, there are some prototype engines by Saab that run on E100 that do take advantage of the higher octane. Those engines do offset some of the energy density penalty, but not all of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Apr 13 2007, 08:46 AM) [snapback]422721[/snapback]</div>

"now granted, a large (pun intended) portion of the us populace needs a bit of starvation".

I resemble that remark.

Anyway, there are better sources of ethanol that don't take away from the food supply.

On the other hand, if they eliminated high fructose corn syrup from the U.S. diet, it would do a lot to improve health in this country.

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Apr 13 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]422726[/snapback]</div>

Not me. I knew Prius was equipped with a bladder for long-term real-world proving long before others would discover the need for such a thing.