![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: 2010 Carmine Red hatchback Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Colorful Colorado
Posts: 208
|
Quote:
Like I said before.....Colorado has been using oxygenated fuels for a long time now and I have still gotten great mileage out of all the cars I have owned. MTBE & ethanol weren't used to wean us off of Saudi oil, but (at least around here) it was to reduce the brown cloud that hung over the front range. It still exists, but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. I think anyone who believes using ethanol will reduce our reliance on oil (foreign or domestic) is deluded. It is primarily done to subsidise farmers by creating an artificial price floor. The costs involved in using ethanol are absurd (as Bailout pointed out), but we still do it because we want to keep farmers farming. I personally think it doesn't make any sense outside of urban areas where the air pollution is high or, like in Denver, temperature inversions create some nasty air in the winter. BTW.....my degree is in economics and I have done several cost-benefit analyses on ethanol and bio-diesel, et. al and from a purely monetary viewpoint it is insanely expensive and innecessary, although bio-diesel *is* fun to make. :) I guess my point was to say that my mileage loss by using E10 is minute. Obviously there is some energy lost due to ethanols lower BTU content.....I think we all agree on that. I'm only suggesting that if I am averaging around 40MPG on E10 that it won't suddenly rise to 45MPG on E0 or "pure" gas. However, to test this out I will fill up on "pure" gas for the next 4 tanks and we'll see what happens. I believe there is a station about 6 miles from where I live that sells E0, but I will have to double check. It won't be 100% scientific, but if my average mileage for these 4 tanks climbs 5% or higher than my most recent 4 tanks then I will concede and agree that E10 substantially lowers fuel mileage. It would be more interesting (and more scientific) if I could measure the tailpipe emissions as well.....then we could really do one heck of an analysis to see which way is the best way overall (let's face it.....sometimes the best overall choice isn't the one that gets the highest marks in one area....think macro, not micro). I will need to fill up sometime this week and I will start (assuming I can find E0) a new thread that charts it all out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Drives: '08 LB MT Bayou Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,671
|
Quote:
I am glad to see that 40MPG is possible in this state as I have pretty much written that off as a possibility in the area that I live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
![]() ![]() Drives: 2008 Yaris HB Join Date: May 2009
Location: So Cal.
Posts: 100
|
Tires/tire presure has helped me the most. V-rated tires(stiff) and 42-45 psi I drive the piss out the car and still average 37-38 EVERY tank. The car rides like crap but it did that before just not quite as bad, and cornering is more fun. Try 40 psi, vs recommeded 33 or whatever it is, bet you get 1-2 mpg more right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Mr. 155 and climbing
Drives: Seriously Modded 07 Sedan Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In The Hotbox
Posts: 4,742
|
^ it has been pretty rare for me in northern Maine as well...I have had much better luck in different parts of the country than here...The only way that I have gotten more than 38-39 in Maine is if I really baby it on I95 and don't use AC or cruise.
__________________
Team Tiamat Racing on Facebook Youtube Channel: Team Tiamat Racing Class record holder in Land Speed @ 154.5mph for 1.5 mile and 145.5mph in the mile in the F (2.016 to 3.014 L), G (1.524 to 2.015 L), and H (1.016 to 1.523 L) classes. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|