MPG in window stikcers using 100% real gas

[WATERWINGS]

I wondered about this..... according to Mike's research they use 100% real gas for these numbers....NOT the 10% Ethanol that we are forced to burn......which gets WORSE MPG.......

Do as I say....not as I do......

Originally Posted by engineermike
I ran across something interesting. . . the EPA mileage estimates for cars (window sticker) are done using 100% gas. Nice of them to mandate we use moonshine gas then they do their testing and report higher numbers using pure gas.

Thanks Mike !

[activator22]

Perhaps a little arm twisting by the auto manufacturers

[WATERWINGS]

Does anybody know how much LESS of a percentage of MPG that Ethanol gets?

[activator22]

from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml

Do EPA fuel economy estimates account for the use of ethanol blends that are common today?

No. The EPA fuel economy tests use 100 percent gasoline, and no adjustments are made to account for ethanol. Most conventional vehicles using E10 (10 percent ethanol) will experience a 3 to 4 percent reduction in fuel economy.

Why don't EPA fuel economy tests use ethanol-blended gasoline now that most gasoline contains ethanol?

EPA fuel economy tests are conducted according to Federal testing regulations which require 100 percent gasoline. These regulations could to be changed, but changing them would be somewhat problematic. While it is common for gasoline pumps to allow for up to 10 percent ethanol, the actual amount of ethanol blended into the gasoline varies greatly, and fuel blending requirements vary by state. Changing the test methods would also make it difficult to compare vehicles tested with ethanol blends with those tested with straight gasoline. So, without a national standard for blended regular gasoline and a Federal mandate to change the test fuel used, the EPA will not change the test fuel.

[WATERWINGS]

sounds like a bunch of buracratic BS to me.......

The window sticker should say all this in big letters.....

Only 3 ot 4 % ?......is that most of you have noticed when filling up ?

[Alli-drenaline Rush]

LOL.... look on the bright side, though! Given that 10% EtOH gas has only 96.7% of the energy content of mogas, using the good stuff for mileage estimates makes it easier for manufacturers to hit the CAFE targets, thus preventing in some small way additional mandated efforts on the part of auto manufacturers to stuff us into ever smaller cars..... correction - stuff you guys into ever smaller cars...... long-live the 5.9L Cummins Turbo-Diesel.... hooo-rah! :D


Mogas has 113,300 BTU / gallon. Ethanol has (about) 76,330 BTU / gallon. Running the numbers on 10% EtOH yields an energy content for 10% ethanol gas of 109,600 BTU / gallon, or 96.7% that of the good stuff, so you should experience a 3.4% drop in mileage (1/.967), all other things being equal...... <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig --><!-- END TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig -->

[rev.ronnie]

We have a 2011 GMC Terrain. Bought it because it claimed 31mpg on the window sticker. With the "winter blended fuel" it got like 21mpg. It will get maybe 27 on the best day in the summer. Have never seen 31.

I understand that in the winter, with everything cold, the rolling resistance is higher, grease and lube are thicker and there is more ethanol in the fuel, but 33% worse than advertised?

I am going to run a tank of non-ox through it one of these days to see if it will get 30.

[Lockjaw]

My tundra gets 20ish on the highway with pure gas, it will not get 17 with E10.

While I can see the benefit of allowing them to use pure gas to make their mileage runs and avoid CAFE issues, the bottom line is, I expect my vehicle to do what the window sticker says, not miss it by a wide margin.

[Action Dave]

When I bought my Dodge Ram 1500 in 2006 the sticker said 14 city and 19 highway. Both were pretty dead on as long as I didn't romp the pedal in the city or run faster than 75 on the highway. E-10 has dropped my milage to around 13 city. Highway milage isn't as drastic. I can still get over 18mpg on a long trip if I keep the tach around 2 grand in overdrive. That's right around 72 mph.

[mirage243]

I read the other day that it takes 1.3 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, WTF is that?

[activator22]

Guess it depends what you read...

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.aspx

Ethanol versus Gasoline
A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update" (PDF) EXT was published in July of 2002. The Conclusion states in part: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain." A similar study done in 1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of ethanol is increasing.

The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline). According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.

In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.

This one lays out the actual numbers... http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html

[JR IN JAX]

Guess it depends what you read...

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.aspx

Ethanol versus Gasoline
A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update" (PDF) EXT was published in July of 2002. The Conclusion states in part: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain." A similar study done in 1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of ethanol is increasing.

The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline). According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.

In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.

This one lays out the actual numbers... http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
That is from 1995 and was discredited many years ago as corn-belt propaganda. Use something more recent and you find it takes about 25% more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it. http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html
Common sense says that if ethanol was efficient, they would burn ethanol instead of gasoline to make it......

[Ron V]

I've usually beat the mileage estimates on the window sticker with my vehicles anyway, even on E-10.

[AwesomeBullet]

I was looking at new Chevy Silverados last week, and the window stickers had a separate area...One box was titled "this is your estimated range on ethanol/hybrid fuel" and the other box was "this is your estimated range on pure gasoline".....It was laughing when the 2011 Silverado 5.3 was put at 250-350 miles on ethanol and 350-450 on gasoline....My dad doesn't know much about cars, but he looked at me and said "If it is that much worse on mileage, why are we having to run this chit?????".....

[CDave]

I seem to remember many years ago this "Gasohol" was forced down our throats. It's the 70's/80's all over again!!!! AHHHH

[Lockjaw]

I read the other day that it takes 1.3 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, WTF is that?

CRAP!!!!

It is the way the government works, you know, we have to "spend our way out of debt" rather then cut costs.

[Fish]

I've usually beat the mileage estimates on the window sticker with my vehicles anyway, even on E-10.

how? i'd love to know since it now takes me over 20 bucks to go to and from work daily.

[johnboy 88 vegas]

Lost 3mpg on a F150 when the junk come out went from 13 to 10. Got a older Powerstroke now that gets about 15 around town with 35" tires.

[Ron V]

how? i'd love to know since it now takes me over 20 bucks to go to and from work daily.

Light foot, smooth pedal motions like in driver's ed, check tire inflation regularly (and don't trust anyone else to do it - not even the tire shop), don't slam on the brakes, plan your moves in traffic...it all adds up. My Tacoma is rated 21 city / 26 highway. I consistently get 23-24 back and forth to work (not true "city" driving but there are 40 stoplights in 25 miles and a lot of it is poking along), and I've gotten 27-28 on the highway cruising 70 with the air on. And 20 towing the boat in 3rd gear. Only footnote here is the sticker in the Tacoma was Toyota numbers, not EPA. So the fact that I've beaten their salesmanship is even better.

2000 Buick Century got 25-27 back and forth to work and 32-34 on the highway. I think that's more than the sticker advertised.

Don't know what my '85 Cutlass Salon and '80 Regal (3.8 liter 2-barrel) were advertised at, but 18-20 around town and 25+ on the highway was probably at least on par with what was advertised.

My understanding was that the EPA estimates were traditionally pessimistic anyway, to punish the manufacturers with the CAFE standards as much as possible? Maybe not...only saying what I've gotten out of my vehicles. My father has pretty much gotten the same results - usually better than the EPA sticker.

[WATERWINGS]

My '83 Mustang GT / 302 4 speed got 27 MPG highway back and forth to Atlanta....I thought that was unheard of for a V-8 back in the mid to late '80's

[Pro300x24LD]

I've usually beat the mileage estimates on the window sticker with my vehicles anyway, even on E-10.as do i.


how? i'd love to know since it now takes me over 20 bucks to go to and from work daily.fish I drive 55 miles one way to work, my subaroo beater commuter is rated at 24-26 mpg highway, 20ish city, I can't recall exactly.

It's not uncommon for me to get 30 mpg mixed out of a tank. 65 on the freeway, shift at 3,000 rpm, accelerate slow and smooth, etc.

[Euroski]

Does anybody know how much LESS of a percentage of MPG that Ethanol gets?

I have a 2010 VW Tiguan 4-Motion that rated for 18/25mpg. I get 22mpg for local diving!. VW rates their car honestly as most get more than rated for.

[Dave Strong]

Window sticker mpg numbers have always been a problem, they test in ideal conditions that no one in the real world would drive under. When I was working at a GM dealer in the late 90's people were always coming in saying they were getting less. We were told by GM the highway estimates were done with engine at normal operating temp, level road, no wind, at a speed of 45mph, 70deg F. Don't know if they still use the same conditions today but those were pretty unrealistic standards that you would never normally meet in day to day driving.

Dave