Pure Gasoline vs 10% Ethanol in newer vehicles

[CELICA_XX]

This topic was semi-discussed a few months ago for older vehicles, but nothing about newer vehicles (2000-2015).

It was largely a discussion about farmers, legislators, taxes, political agendas, and corn. Basically a waste of time.

I am talking about a normal 2002 Camry with 150k that gets driven to soccer practice.

With price removed from the equation, would the E0 gas be better for seals and other components, or is there no change from E10 ?

 

[mulehead]

It would get better mpg and cost less food prices and feed costs would go down but it's all about farm state votes and Washington control

 

[SwampSurvivor]

There's a definite improvement in mileage on my Cherokee 4.0L

 

[mclasser]

Two of my cars are from 2002 and their owner's manuals say not to run anything greater than E10. I take that as meaning the seals and fuel components are made to handle E10.

Some say their cars run better on pure gas. If I could actually track down an E0 station, I'd definitely give it a try.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: mclasser
Two of my cars are from 2002 and their owner's manuals say not to run anything greater than E10. I take that as meaning the seals and fuel components are made to handle E10.

Some say their cars run better on pure gas. If I could actually track down an E0 station, I'd definitely give it a try.


Luckily for me, there are quite a few locally.

Unfortunately, it's not cost effective by a long shot.

 

[Pajero]

I have a 1994 Montero SR I purchased new and was having some fuel problems. I met with the Mitsu representative for the Pacific North West.

He stated that the Montero was not designed to run ethanol and it would harm fuel injectors. Furthermore, the owners manual states to run premium unleaded to which the rep reiterated to me.

Years back I was in Canada and the Montero really liked the 94 octane.

I currently reside in the southwest and 99% fuel here has ethanol. Premium unleaded is 90 and 91, due to the elevation. The Montero purrs at sea level with 93 octane.............rant over

 

[Donald]

Even if it were the same cost, I would run a tank of E10 every few months as it will absorb water in the tank and does some cleaning.

You should get better mileage with E0.

 

[4wheeldog]

When I have been able to put E0 in my vehicles, the improvement in fuel mileage was more than could be accounted for by BTU content. Which leads me to believe that what is sold as E10 often has more ethanol than advertised. YMMV.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Gasoline is for cars. E10 is for politics.

 

[3311]

I remember seeing about a 1mpg drop with my 04 below when they started putting that garbage in fuel here in Fl.
I wish that stations here would sell competitvely priced ethanol free gas around Central Fl.

 

[Dyusik]

E10 all I can find other than ONE gas station that I know of, and its only 92 octane and much more expensive. A number of boaters complained that the E10 is trash when it comes to storage, problems starting, gumming, water....My bike doesn't like too long, two weeks and It turns into a pita at start up.

 

[justalubetech]

I have a zero-ethanol station near my house, but you can only get it in 90-octane and it is usually 35-45 cents more than regular, so I think the mileage benefits of no ethanol are kind of offset

 

[chainblu]

Originally Posted By: jsfalls
I have a zero-ethanol station near my house, but you can only get it in 90-octane and it is usually 35-45 cents more than regular, so I think the mileage benefits of no ethanol are kind of offset

Same here. I do buy it for my lawn mowers. They do not run well on E10.

 

[440Magnum]

All economics and politics aside, there's nothing wrong with E10 from an engineering perspective in post-2000 (and some even older) cars.

The benefits: its an octane booster, oxygenate, and it doesn't persist in the environment.

The downsides: there are other oxygenates/octane boosters that have an energy density that's closer to gasoline. Fuel blended with those tend to get better fuel mileage, but they're much more toxic since the other octane boosters are either organometallics or things like MTBE.

The myth: that there is such a thing as "pure" gas. Well, there is- its called Coleman stove fuel and you couldn't run it in an internal combustion engine with a compression ratio over 5:1... But the gas sold as "ethanol free" still has TONS of additives- its just that they use those more toxic compounds instead of ethanol.

I personally like the use of ethanol as an octane boosting additive up to 10-15%. But I don't think it makes sense as a gasoline substitute or "alternative fuel" in E-85 form. Butanol makes much more sense for that since its got a more comparable energy density to gasoline.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Some of the best jobs in this Midwestern city are to be found at ADM's power park which produces ethanol, other corn based products and generates energy for both the plant and for the local REA co-op. That being said, I'm not sold on ethanol as a motor fuel. Its production is promoted in our state because it brings in federal funds for construction and it offers very good jobs with fringe benefits that are hard to find with most employers in our area. I say use 87 octane without E10 if you can use it in your vehicle.I have used E10 in my 04 Camry since it was new because the price is often lower than straight 87 octane gasoline.

 

[Pontual]

Less carbon and better environment.

 

[Donald]

When I asked, I was told that Federal law allows them to sell only grades above regular without ethanol. So already its going to be a higher cost since its mid-range or premium.

The worst for E10 gas issues were some large boats made by Carver (I think) where the resin used for the fiberglass gas tanks was dissolved by the E10. They had to cut sections into the boats to replace the tanks.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Donald
When I asked, I was told that Federal law allows them to sell only grades above regular without ethanol. So already its going to be a higher cost since its mid-range or premium.

The worst for E10 gas issues were some large boats made by Carver (I think) where the resin used for the fiberglass gas tanks was dissolved by the E10. They had to cut sections into the boats to replace the tanks.


That can't be true. We have 87 octane E0 in Kansas City. It is about $0.10/gallon more than E10.

 

[steve20]

Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
When I have been able to put E0 in my vehicles, the improvement in fuel mileage was more than could be accounted for by BTU content. Which leads me to believe that what is sold as E10 often has more ethanol than advertised. YMMV.


Boy, is that ever true ^ ^ ^

To address your question though, my 95 Corvette LT1 loves E0, the 2008 Corvette Z06 LS7 runs like carp on E0
Why, I wish I knew

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Less carbon and better environment.


So sorry, but that is publicity, not all factual, and very debatable.

We have flex fuel vehicles exclusively in our fleet, and they run excellent on anything all the way out to E85. But the mileage can vary drastically IME.

In my personal vehicles the supercharged 572 in my boat LOVES alcohol, the more the better. And I mean MORE as efficiency drops dramatically. But you can get almost 200hp more even with conservative timing. My hot rod (stroker small block) is really radical and also loves the alky. But the small gas tank means you stop a lot with E85.

IMO the advanced timing makes a far better experience as the engine is snappy and sharp. It's worth it and I like it.

The 6.1 in the Chrysler hates the stuff and is more responsive and faster on straight gas than even E10. Mileage drops more than 10% too, so I agree with the previous posters about content...