Comments (scroll down to add your own):

1. You have to take it for what it’s worth. Sure, these people are experiencing lower gas mileage… but, they are probably not attempting to measure it. They notice that they go to the pump sooner, and then exaggerate. I know absolutely no one, besides myself, who ever “tests” their gas mileage.

   Comment by Dus10 — Jun 1st 2006 @ 12:06 pm

2. My MINI Cooper gives me a live readout of my at-the-moment gas consumption as well as my average gas consumption. Maryland also just made the switch to 10% ethanol a few weeks ago, and I can definitely confirm that my mileage has dropped a good 10-15% since then. My driving habits have not changed, and I made the comparisons based on both city and highway driving; both have gone down 2-3 MPG since the switch.

   So who do I sue to get my money back? (I’m half serious…)

   Comment by Nick — Jun 1st 2006 @ 1:00 pm

3. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, so it seems logical that mileage would drop a bit. Also, ethanol could be the ticket for reducing our dependence on foriegn oil, but it’s actually less energy efficient to fuel vehicles with the stuff, as opposed to gasoline, if the entire energy production chain is accounted for. As one of the editors of Car & Driver Magazine (can’t remember which one) said recently, “if the gasoline engine didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it to save the planet”

   Comment by Debt Free — Jun 2nd 2006 @ 2:47 pm

4. great post thanks

   Comment by car buying saving tips — Jun 19th 2006 @ 2:15 pm

5. I do religiously check my fuel mileage and here is my experience using E10:

   Driving a compact pickup with a 4-cylinder engine I usually get about 32 mpg while driving at steady highway speeds and using gasoline.

   When using E10, my mileage drops to about 29 mpg.

   That means on a trip of 320 miles I would burn 10 gallons of gasoline. If I used E10 for the same trip, I would need just a bit less than 11 gallons.

   But, 90% of that E10 would be gasoline. That means when I burn 11 gallons of E10, I burn 9.9 gallons of gasoline.

   Whether I buy gasoline or E10, I burn almost exactly the same amount of gasoline, but if I use E10, I have to buy 11 gallons of fuel.

   I now buy E10 only when I really need gas, and have no choice.

   Comment by Gary Dikkers — Jun 22nd 2006 @ 11:15 pm

6. I have for two years carefully tracked my gas milage and have found that I get 2 miles per gallon less with an Ethanol blend. This means I pay an extra $15 per month at the pump. This seems to me to be a state imposed extra gas tax.

   Comment by Jim Kartes — Aug 16th 2006 @ 2:16 pm

7. There was an article in a recent Car & Driver magazine that looked at the subject of E85. Using a flex fuel Chevy Tahoe, the magazine found a substantial drop in fuel economy. It was as much as 25%! Although it’s great to save the environment and help eliminate the U.S. dependence on foreign oil, I doubt too many U.S. consumers are willing to incur a 25% increase in fuel bills to do it. If ethanol supplies can be increased, prices of E85 may drop and it may become more economicly viable for the average consumer. Given that ethanol production is heavily subsidized at the moment, the real cost is even higher.

   If the quantity demanded was high enough, however, there would be an economic incentive for supplies to increase and production methods to improve. We’d then see lower prices, leading to even greater productivity. Prices would then likely fall enough to offset the decreased fuel economy.

   Comment by Debt Free — Aug 28th 2006 @ 7:28 pm

8. I measure gas milage every couple months (I drive a min. of 120 miles a day). I dropped from 30 mpg in my 2003 Jetta to 27 mpg when the Shell gas station I use swapped over. I don’t beleive in coincidences.

   Comment by Evil Gurgle — Feb 28th 2007 @ 7:48 am

9. I am an economic statistician by trade so I constantly collect data on numerous things just by habit. I’ve collected MPG stats on my 92 Sentra since I got her new years ago. Prior to the 10% ethanol switch, I would get a median average of 35MPG with a range of about +-1mpg. This was established over about the past 30k miles. After the ethanol switch, I am now down to a median average of 33MPG with a range of about the same as before. This shows a 2MPG drop or about 5%. I’ve racked on about 10k since the switch so my data is fairly conclusive: Ethanol switch did indeed drop my mileage by 5%.

   Comment by Steve — Mar 11th 2007 @ 9:26 pm

10. Mileage has dropped at least 20% on the two vehicles we tested, resulting in an overall INCREASE in gasoline consumption and emissions.

    The assurances of a small 2% drop in mileage seem like propaganda to me, and someone is surely making money off of this while increasing damage to the environment. I suspect the “testing” done to ensure vehicle compatibility was a sham.

    Reprehensible.

    If only I had Al Gore’s e-mail address.

    Comment by John Perez — Apr 10th 2007 @ 9:13 pm

11. I am a Ph.D. chemist and worked in fuels research 20 years ago for a major oil company. My 2004 SAAB 9-3 has a trip computer. I live in Houston. Average gas mileage was just above 30 mpg on gaosline. Once the switch was made to 10% ethanol, that dropped to 24-25 mpg (for a 17% drop in gas mileage). No change in driving habits. I just got a new 2007 SAAB 9-3 and am getting 25.8 mpg over the first 3000 miles. This is easily tested by someone with an engine lab. I am surprised it hasn’t been done. I believe that not only is the energy content less (by about 3%), but that burn in the engine is less efficient (probably burns at a lower temperature). This means that the energy use is not as efficient and so gas mileage is reduced far more than the 3 % theoretical. I have a friend who is an R & D director for a major chemical company who has anecdotedly noted the same result in his car and those of about a dozen of his friends. No wonder we are using more gasoline this year!!

    Comment by Mark Peterson, Ph.D. — Jun 1st 2007 @ 5:37 pm

12. I have a 2006 Dodge Ram. I keep very good track of mileage. 10% ethanol meant a 10% drop in mileage for me in both the Dodge and My Ford Explorer. That’s a fact. No driving changes. Just a change in fuel

    Comment by Stets — Oct 18th 2007 @ 9:36 am

13. I’m so very glad to read these posts. I drive a Prius and have an absolute 10% drop in my mpg with the 10% ethanol blended gasoline. Going from 50 mpg to 45 makes it very obvious and I have a constant readout. We just need someone articulate and vocal to bring this to the fore to expose that it harms the air and water quality, costs the taxpayers a fortune in gov’t subsidies, raises the price of food and gasoline, and all for naught. It doesn’t get us any farther on a gallon of gas!

    Comment by Beth Rodzinski — Nov 12th 2007 @ 6:26 pm

14. My brother just ran a test on this. He took a trip to Missouri, filling up with 10 percent ethanol at a Quik Trip station in Tulsa on 22 November, and filling up with straight gasoline at a Phillips 66 station in Missouri before starting back to Tulsa. Driving a Lexus ES 350 (3.5 liter V-6 engine) he got 28 mpg on the tank with 10 percent ethanol, and 31 mpg on straight gasoline averaging approximately the same speed on both legs of the trip, which calculates to 7.14 percent better fuel mileage on straight gasoline. Of course, that’s only a single test, but it does seem to indicate a significant decrease in fuel mileage with a 10 percent ethanol blend. Seems very logical when you consider that ethanol produces significantly less heat when burned than gasoline.

    Comment by Bill Goswick — Nov 25th 2007 @ 11:42 pm

15. So now we pay the same in gas prices and get less mileage. What is that all about? My wife and I have also noticed a 15% drop in our mileage here in Texas. What can we do about it? We have checked and we dropped from 250 to 200 for a jeep and 300 to 250 on a chevy truck.

    Comment by Maurice Bertrand — Dec 14th 2007 @ 10:39 pm

16. I live in Maryland and have kept detailed records of fuel mileage for years. I experienced a drop of 10% on one vehicle and over 15% on another when the 10% ethanol became mandatory. Where is the advantage or savings in using 10% ethanol if we pay more to begin with and get fewer miles per gallon. We still burn the same amount or more gasoline plus the ethanol that is mixed in. We pay more and any reduction in pollution per gallon is more than offset by burning more gallons. We have been had!

    Comment by Gary — Dec 16th 2007 @ 11:10 pm

17. My Kia got from 33 to 36 mpg on the highway. Then it dropped down to 28 or 29 mpg. In Kansas E-10 by law dosnt have to be labeled as such. I asked the station owner where I by gas if it was E-10. He said yes and they started it right at the time my mileage dropped. I wish there was a way to find stations that sold pure gas. Ethanol sucks!!

    Comment by Roy — Dec 19th 2007 @ 10:11 am

18. They just opened an Ethanol station in my area (Meijer). I have a 2005 Ford Explorer FFV. So I thought I would give it a try. The first thing I noticed is that my instantaneous/avg MPG readout was much lower than with regular gasoline. Normal highway is around 20. It looks like I am getting about 17 or maybe a little less with the E85.

    I guess part of the benefit is supposed to be cost as well. The E85 was $2.57. Regular was going for about $2.87 in the area. Doing the math on a 500 mile trip, the gas would be $71.75. Wit E85 the same trip would be $80.31. the the 30cent savings doesn’t really make up for the loss in MPG.

    I do get some pleasure in knowing I am not buying a gallon of foriegn product. And I think I am helping the environment. Maybe if we can improve the price of ethanol to even it out, and get more people buying, we really can get the oil prices to come down??

    Comment by Steve — Dec 22nd 2007 @ 8:06 pm

19. I have a 07 Prius and have tracked mpg for about 15 months. Used E10 mix for 3 months and have noted a 15% drop in efficiency.

    So now we will be using more fuel to travel the same distances; 5 gal of fossil fuel to produce 1 gal of ethanol; more smog as in summertime ethanol’s volitility pumps more pollutants into our air (EPA data);and ADM & Co take home our tax dollars in subsidies.

    Write your congresspersons and demand answers

    Comment by tom — Dec 23rd 2007 @ 10:27 pm

20. I measured a consistent 5% drop in my Civic when using MTBE and Ethanol blended fuel when they used it in my area. Stations could use either so I’m not sure if one had more negative impact than the other.

    Comment by Joe — Jan 2nd 2008 @ 8:05 pm

21. With Oregon’s switch to 10% ethanol, my 2000 Beetle dropped from 26 mpg to 21 mpg. This 24% drop in gas mileage means my vehicle spews our MORE petroleum by-products than before, my cost for driving goes UP at least 24%, and the state of Oregon collects 24% more gas tax.

    Comment by Larry — Jan 7th 2008 @ 12:21 pm

22. Handy, very handy. Thank you guys.

    Comment by Nick — Jan 7th 2008 @ 12:56 pm

23. I have been expierencing the exact same reductions in mileage with the ten percent ethanol in a 2006 G-6. Here in Kansas the stations don’t have to label the pumps and you must ask a clerk what you’re purchasing. How do we get this stuff abolished? I doubt any lawmaker will actually listen to reason.

    Comment by jay — Jan 13th 2008 @ 10:11 pm

24. I live in Iowa, and we are being praised as providing the savior to the internal-combustion engine with ethanol. Well, I’m not convinced. I also did the fuel mileage check for myself and experienced 2 mpg loss. So I did the math for my family and here’s what I’ve come up with: If the ethanol blend(E10) is 11 cents cheaper per gallon then regular, then I break even on cost. Anything less than that, I put in the regular. I spend a little more at the pump ($2.00 at most), but I get an extra 30 miles out of a tank. I’m convinced that the sun is causing the earth to warm, not humans, so I would rather put a few extra bucks in my pocket every tank, than give in to the American love affair with ethanol. I suggest you do the math for yourself. If nothing else it’s a good mental activity and could save you a few bucks.

    Comment by Thad — Jan 15th 2008 @ 9:11 am

25. Interesting dialog. I have 5 vehicles, two of interest might be a 1996 windstar and 1998 Wrangler. The windstar has 225k miles, always logged every gallon of gas that went in since new. Same with the Jeep, 200k miles. During the life of these vehicles we installed E10. I have graphed the consumption, shows the obvious annual flucuations due to temperature, also variability due to long trips. Nowhere in the data can you detect the installation of E10. So until somebody at a lab does the testing, I think people should avoid the anticdotal evidence. There was a lab that tested, search report ACE optimal ethanol blend study, that actually followed the BTU curve of the ethanol/gasoline blends, from straight gas to E85, but found some interesting peaks at intermediate blends. I know it was sponsored by ethanol, but was done by an independant lab. I am tempted to try them, but don’t really want to mess around with two pumps when filling. I would be interested in others that actually keep logs, graph the data, and show the results. Just watch what 10 degrees of temp does to your data. you can get the temp data from NOAA site.

    Comment by Herb — Jan 29th 2008 @ 3:31 pm

26. This E10 stuff is SOME BULL. I used to get 16 mpg solid out of my silverado (5.7) and sometimes upwards of 18 on the highway. what do i get now with E10 everywhere? 12 city/13 highway. and we’re still being charged the same price as conventional gasoline! Al Gore is a dead man. hes about to incite a riot.

    Comment by Andrew — Mar 3rd 2008 @ 7:05 pm

27. Dus10 – for your information, I check my gas mileage at every fill-up.

    Comment by Bill G — Mar 3rd 2008 @ 10:11 pm

28. I suppose having a lab test would be nice, but considering most people are noticing the drop, I think there might be something to it. I didn’t even know I was running 10% a few months ago, but I did know my milage had dropped. I thought something was wrong with my car, I was getting a worried. Then I heard about the reduction in milage so I decided to test it out. I went to a station that sells straight gas, and every time, I get better milage. With 10%, I get about 400 miles, with straight gas, I get about 440. I’m glad its not my vehicle, but it ticks me off that I’m paying so much money for less efficiency. Plus, even if demand did get the price down, food prices would skyrocket out of control.

    Comment by Joshua — Mar 4th 2008 @ 7:46 am

29. Oregon now requires E10. I record every gallon purchased. I recently took a trip to Colorado. Got 15.9 with E10, averaged 18.4 without. Note that the interstate speed limit here in Oregon is 65 and was 75 in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. Didn’t travel on a freeway in Colorado but the limit was 70 on the 2 lane highway I drove. I go 86% as far on E10. E10 is costing us MORE foreign oil, not saving any.

    Comment by Richard Scott — Mar 8th 2008 @ 8:44 pm

30. My mileage is down 30% since the ethanol came online. Even had my fuel system cleaned, no difference.

    Plus, the dealership told me that the ethanol was likely responsible for my cracked o-rings.

    Thanks, ethanol!

    Comment by Nick in Oregon — Mar 15th 2008 @ 7:24 pm

31. My ‘98 Corolla has suffered a distinct drop in mileage with the mandatory E10 rule that went into effect last summer (in Portland). With 100% petroleum, I got 39 mpg. That’s about 25.6 gallons to go 1000 miles. With 10% ethanol, I use 30.3 gallons to go 1000 miles. If 90% of that is petroleum, I used 27.3 gallons of petrol. To coin an acronym my kids use, WTF? Ethanol appears to have degraded my performance so much I actually burn more fossil fuel than before. Is there a flaw in my math? I’m very diligent in checking my mileage and gas usage. Or is this just another con to line the pockets of oil producers?

    I’ve also read that ethanol (a solvent, not a lubricant), is very bad for older cars, and will degrade your fuel system. We’ve got three older cars, a 1998, a 1996 and a 1984.

    Comment by Pat in Oregon — Mar 19th 2008 @ 6:08 pm

32. Yes, I’ve noticed about a 4 mpg drop in my escort doing all city driving, from 27 to 23. (since the E10 blend started) My car is 19 years old, so i hope that the ethanol isn’t screwing up my fuel system. I was wondering when they are going to switch back to straight gas, and if anyone knows of any stations that still sell straight gas even though the other ones are using the blend. Thanks everyone!

    Comment by Rich — Mar 26th 2008 @ 8:25 pm

33. 10% ethanol in IA is ten cents less per gallon than regular. My car’s instant and average mpg drops 2 to 2.5 mpg using ethanol.
    For me ten gallons of Ethanol = about 190 miles (city).
    Ten gallons regular = 210 miles (city) so it’s actually $2 less per ten gallons to use regular gas over ethanol because ten gallons of regular only costs $1 more than ten gallons of ethanol, while I have to pay $3+ for a gallon of either gas to drive the extra approx. 20 miles I lose burning ethanol.
    Most people don’t figure this out and just use the cheaper priced ethanol without realizing its actually costing them more (total miles driven is the “hidden” higher cost of using ethanol).
    Octane also tells the same story. Regular is about 87 octane (more BTU’s = more power), ethanol is about 89 octane (less BTU’s = less power). Ethanol needs to be 0.30 cents less a gallon than regular for me to break even and drive the same total miles using it compared to regular gas.

    Comment by Jim — Apr 6th 2008 @ 10:48 pm

34. For about nine years, my 4 cylinder SLK has been consistently getting 27 mpg. In the last year, it has dropped to 25 mpg – over a 7% reduction. This seems to have occurred with the introduction of ethanol in the gasoline. This means if I travel the same number of miles per week, I am using virtually the same amount of oil as before, in addition to the ethanol. Considering the energy involved in the manufacture of the ethanol, it appears this 90/10 “solution” is contributing to the problem, not solving it. Do you think with big business and politics involved, the consumer has any chance this “solution” can be rethought?

    Comment by Jeff in Southern California — Apr 7th 2008 @ 12:38 am

35. I have a 1995 gsxr motorcycle, Last year I could run 87octane(100% gas). Now I have to use 97octane or it runs like its running out of gas at low rpm. My 1990 civic got 40.5mpg before, Now it gets 37mpg with the new ethanol gas. And yes i know how to check it.(most don’t)

    Comment by Dennis Atkins — Apr 9th 2008 @ 11:40 am

36. I started noticing a drop in gas mileage the first of the year. I keep track of fill ups and mileage for business purposes. I was averaging 20 mpg prior to January. I am now averaging 15 mpg or a 25% loss. I contacted the local gas providers in the area and they confirmed they changed to an E10 formula in January. Prior to calling, not knowing what was going on, I asked about ten friends if they noticed a drop in mpg and they all confirmed they have. None of us knew what was happening. I started doing everything suggested to increase gas mileage – ie. tire pressure, etc without any change. At first I was thinking I was having engine problems of some sort. So now we are paying the same price at the pump but getting less miles for the product, while corn prices rise as well. I asked the provider if they had any suggestions and they suggested changing the fuel filter as the ethanol probably cleaned out the fuel system and gunked up the filter. My problem is that my fuel filter is attached to the fuel pump inside the gas tank, which means if it is gunked up and is causing problems, the E10 has just caused me another expensive headache. I asked if the pumps are marked indicating the blend is E10. I was told there is a small sticker that says it “may” contain up to 10% ethanol. I have yet to notice it. So, what do we do now?

    Comment by Darrell in Pennsylvania — Apr 10th 2008 @ 12:16 am

37. You can stop this thread here.

    There have been many careful studies of the ethanol issue, Pimental at Cornel probably the best.
    Ethanol absolutely contains less energy when burned per gallon than gas. Thus the more alcohol you add the lower the mileage you will get until with 100% ethanol you would see about a 30% decrease in MPG. The actual mix in the gas you buy may vary since it is not mixed at the refinary but more locally. Ethanol is also more expensive than gasoline and goes up with the price of gas.
    It is a government boondoggle that helps get the vote in the midwest.
    We are now trading food for energy and according to most studies we are not getting much if any additional energy.
    This will pass due to the rapid increase in grain prices.

    Comment by Bill in Delaware — Apr 16th 2008 @ 2:31 pm

38. Ethanol contains about 70% as much energy as gasoline, so theory would suggest only a 3% loss of mileage when gas is diluted 10% with ethanol. But as postings above suggest, experience says something else is going on to reduce mileage below what theory suggests.

    The only “studies” I have seen online are published by ethanol advocates and they suggest a loss of 3% at most and some assert an increase in mileage–obviously an outright lie. I would like to see some organization with some credibility and reputation for objectivity do a study. The simplest would be to run a car using E10 on a track at a constant speed until the tank ran dry, then do the same with pure gasoline and compare distance traveled.

    BTW, the petroleum companies had to invest big bucks (big to us, pennies to them) to buy sophisticated mixing equipment, to insure it does get thoroughly mixed as it goes into the truck. The gas at the stations in Oregon is regularly tested to insure it meets the 10% standard.

    Comment by Richard Scott — Apr 16th 2008 @ 3:03 pm

39. I also drive a Prius in Oregon. So do several of my friends. Each of us noticed an immediate 12-20 % drop in mpg when Ethanol started, and ths has continued every tank for months, and for all driving conditions: city when from 46 down to 37; highway went from 53 down to 46.

    This is not anecdotal. This is measured. On tank after tank.

    Friends who do not drive riuses report similar drops, but with less accuracy. Hill climb power seems reduced – but is not measured.

    The burn of E10 must be weaker – i.e. the energy delivered by gasoline is hindered:
    1) Ethanol may absorb water
    2) Ethanol may change the burn of gas, perhaps by reducing the heat or molecular impact energy
    3) The computers may inject more gas (sensor)
    4) The E10 may “age”

    There are ethanol.org and other Ethanol insiders who claim otherwise. But we get what we get. And that is NOT Good.

    We need credible testing in real-world conditions. Not special mixes made on the spot, but “pump” E10. And against real controls, not un-identifiable gas. With gas tested chemically, not taking oil company word.

    Comment by Steve Zeigler — Apr 23rd 2008 @ 4:18 pm

40. I ride a motorcycle, and when i first started to ride this bike, I would get 192 (+/-4) miles before my low gas light would come on. Recently, it has been coming on at 166 miles. I have not changed my riding habits at all. I actually make a shorter highway commute to work, and yet, I have lost almost 20 miles per tank! 4.8 gallon tank. that’s boils down to a 5 mile a gallon loss. (light comes on with .75 gallons left in the tank). With my bike which was getting roughly 50 mpg, I now get 45. (I know, poor me) But think of the average car driver. If you drive a vehicle that gets 25 mpg, you now get roughly 20 mpg. Which means you fill up more frequently, spending more money on a lower quality product. Prices are going up, yet quality goes down! Is anyone else outraged about this!!?!?!?!

    Comment by Scott — Apr 25th 2008 @ 1:03 pm

41. LETS THINK
    ETHANOL= WASTING GAS & GRAIN

    Government statistics document that a mix of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline “E85” will
    Produce a drop in gas mileage of approximately 20%. When I first read these figures
    I thought it sounded strange. So, I decided to make a “rule of thumb example” that could be easily related to by the average American, and here is what I came up with.

    Just to make things simple:
    A car traveling 100 miles and getting 10 mpg on regular gasoline.
    100 mi / 10 mpg = 10 gal of gasoline.
    The same car using E85 would get 20% less gas mileage, 80% of 10 mpg = 8 mpg.
    100 mi / 8 mpg = 12.5 gal of E85
    How much of this is gasoline ? 85% of 12.5 gal/mix = 10.625 gal. of gasoline.
    ?? I am trying to keep this simple .
    We just burned .625 gal more gas with the E85 mix plus the additional Ethanol.
    How much additional ethanol? 12.5 gal. mix – 10.625 pure gas = 1.875 gal of ethanol.
    It is my understanding that it takes about 1 gal of gasoline to make 1 gal of ethanol.
    So we have 1.875 gal (used to produce the ethanol) + .625 gal = 2.5 gal of additional gas or 25% more gas just to go the same distance as we did with straight gasoline.
    That’s 25% more pollution from gasoline and 25% more gas dependency per gal of E85 used, etc., obviously we are not reducing our oil dependency with this choice.
    Now we have to add in the Ethanol, another 1.875 gal with it’s associated pollution , environmental and geopolitical problems created by over farming our ground , changing our crop rotations and grain balances, both U.S. and exported.

    Even if you got the ethanol for free, you still used 6.25% more gasoline!

    I understand from people who drive flex fuel cars that the reduction in fuel mileage is closer to 30% to 35%. So here is the calculation for a 30% gas mileage reduction using the example above (7mpg).

    14.29 gal. of mix, 12.14 gal. of gasoline (a 21.4% increase in gas consumption before considering the gas it takes to produce the ethanol), 2.147 gal of ethanol and the matching 2.147 gal of gas to produce the ethanol. That’s a 42.9% increase in gasoline consumption for each gal. of gas used, plus the ethanol.

    I have never thought it a good thing to burn our primary food sources, no matter what the reason (unless of course its toast in the morning). However, if I were wanting to terrorize the U.S., this might be an effective way to do it.
    Of course these figures might not be perfect, but they should be good enough for rule of thumb.
    Additional thoughts:
    For the same 100 miles driven starting with 10 mpg on std gasoline at a price of $3.50 per gallon;
    Standard gasoline cost for 100 miles would be ……… $35
    E85 cost at the governments estimated 20% reduction….. $43.75.….or $4.38 per gallon.
    E85 at 30% (estimated by motorists) $50.00 ….or $5.00 per gallon.
    Figuring gas prices in this way gives us an equivalent price per gallon, looks like the gas companies are getting more per gallon, without raising the price. Just a thought.
    I estimate the 10% max. additive disclaimer now being used could reduce gas mileage 10% to 20%, most gas stations seem to have this disclaimer, good luck finding pure gasoline. My wife says when she uses pure gasoline in her new car, it increases the gas mileage about ……..20%!

    Sincerely,
    Jim Johnson
    Port charlotte, Florida 4/8/08

    Comment by James Johnson — May 2nd 2008 @ 2:54 pm

42. Just for info, E85 means 85% ethanol, not gasoline. That is about as close as you can get to pure ethanol. And if you do the simple BTU calcs, that number quoted by the feds was pretty close to what you might expect for a linear adjustment based on BTU. But here we pay less than 80% of the price of normal gasoline for E85. I’ve been burning it in anything that will take it. It is a bargin, albeit highly subsidized.

    Comment by Herb — May 2nd 2008 @ 6:03 pm

43. I posted here ealier about an 03 Kia. My milleage has gone back up to where it is supposed to be. I now use Shell V-power gas. The best grade they have. The only one without ethanol in it. I have gone from about 25 to 27 mpg back up to 34 to 36. That cost me between $3 and $3.50 a tank more to fill up but well worth it. You can pay less for ethanol but I wont. Not worth it.My tank is 11.7 gallons. I live in Kansas

    Comment by Roy — May 6th 2008 @ 12:11 pm

44. $3 and $3.50 a tank more to fill up that is. 11.7 gallons.

    Comment by Roy — May 6th 2008 @ 12:14 pm

45. I have a 1982 model Kawasaki Motorcycle. It’s air cooled. Although ethanol burns cooler it does burn longer than gasoline and causes engines to retain more heat. As you can imagine I get a serious reduction in mileage, almost 30% or about 20 in stead of 10 and I just about burn up because the engine stays considerably hotter. Either way I read somewhere once that a tune up could make any engine run fine on E10 gas, you just have to tune it for that and then you would lose milage on non E10 gas, since I live in Tennessee I can be picky, but if you live in a state where it matters it might be worth doing a little home work about the tuning idea, although it couldn’t hurt any of us to have the car tuned by a pro at the current prices.

    Comment by Rusty — May 13th 2008 @ 8:51 pm

46. I drive a 2000 Toyota Echo and live in Northern Kentucky (three counties alone have E10 and RFG in the gasoline). I keep detailed mileage logs, and as soon as I started filling up with straight gas in Ohio, I saw a 16% jump in mileage. It’s been consistent for the last two months, and when I filled up with E10, it IMMEDIATELY dropped back 15%.

    Ethanol is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public by the energy industry.

    Comment by Auston — May 14th 2008 @ 12:52 am

47. There is a definate loss in fuel mileage when using the ethanol fuel. I drive the exact same route between Nebraska and North Dakota a couple times a year in the same car. My mileage is always the same every time I check it. I get 5mpg better mileage with regular unleaded gas. I have quit using ethanol completely in both of my cars.
    Ethanol is bad for our economy and will soon be proven to be one of the greatest mistakes ever made.
    In a recent Popular Mechanics issue it was reported that it takes approx. 1.3 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. This is tue to the cost to transport the fuel in diesel powered trucks. It’s just not worth it.

    Comment by Rob — May 14th 2008 @ 12:38 pm

48. I drive a 2006 Toyota Corolla XRS. Unfortunately it requires premium fuel. At first I thought oh gerat 10% ethanol mix. It’s good and good for you… Until I noticed a drop in fuel economy. I took a trip to St. Augustine from Tampa on the 10% mix and got about 290 miles for the tank. On the way back I used straight gas and made a return trip and got 330 miles for the tank. I had cruise control set to 75 both ways. Now to me that is a significant fluctuation in fuel economy. I say corn is meant to be eaten not driven on.

    Comment by Gian — May 23rd 2008 @ 12:37 pm

49. We recently purchased a 2008 Mercury Milan. I have two credit cards I use for gas. Mobil & Shell. My very first tank, averaged 26.2 MPG. The 2nd & 3rd…..increased to 27-28 MPG combination of city/highway. The last fill-up was at a Shell station. The first thing I noticed was a sign posted that Shell regular is now mixed with 10% Ethanol. (I live in VT.)

    I constantly monitor my wife’s Milan by checking the MPG reading on the dash. To my horror when I checked the readout with the 10% Ethanol mix, the MPG fell off by 3 mpg to around 23 MPG. Putting some highway miles on the vehicle improved it to 28 MPG, but the same type of driving with a previous fillup of Mobil delivered 32 MPG. I am guessing I am losing around 10% using the Ethanol mixture. And to add insult to injury, Shell is around
    3 cents higher than regular Mobil gas.

    Needless to say, I am going to inform Shell I will no longer purchase their gas as long they use an Ethanol mixture. We as consumers somehow have got to convince our ‘clueless’ politicians to give up on this Ethanol Craze. I am convinced that Ethanol is really consuming more oil than it saves.

    Comment by Glenn — May 25th 2008 @ 10:37 pm

50. I have a new (8000 miles) 2008 Toyota Avalon. Before my Costco changed to 10% ethanol, I was getting 29 mpg highway and 24 mpg city; I am now getting 25 mpg highway and 21 mpg city. These are repeatable results.

    Comment by Norby — Jul 3rd 2008 @ 1:31 pm

51. Here is the rundown. The corn growers love ethanol for obvious reasons. The oil companies love it because E10 ethanol mixes decrease fuel consumption, thus increasing the demand for more oil. The government (both state and federal) love it because they receive increased taxes because their tax is on every gallon of fuel sold.

    Anybody else see a connection to this E10 gasoline junk and our “oil demand” problem that has driven fuel prices up?

    Let the revolution begin……

    Comment by Greg — Jul 4th 2008 @ 3:48 pm

52. I have a 2002 Mercedes 320ML. When it was new it used to cost under $25.00 to fill it. It’s now north of $75.00. I meticulously record my mileage. when the local stations went to this E10 junk my mileage went down a consistant 20-25% by changing only the fuel. Corn is the absolute most expensive crop you can extract Ethanol from. It takes 1.2 gallons of energy and 1,700.00 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of the garbage. There are billions of barrels of oil sitting in readily accessible shale but the senate, of course , voted down allowing the oil companies to go back in and extract it. The majority of the public seem to be akin to sheep being led to slaughter. Its’ the “don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I’m told by the media and the politicians.
    It’s amazing we can borrow money from other suspect countries to fund a foreign war and we can allow other countries to drill 50 miles off of our coasts but we can’t do the same to solve our own problems. Do you think anyone might be doing all this for their own selfish reasons? Oh, by the way, does anyone realize than more petroleum seeps out of natural fissures in the oceans of the World’s floors every day than has ever been spilled by man in the history of the planet????
    Greg is right, Let the revolution began!

    Comment by Terry — Jul 4th 2008 @ 6:40 pm

53. MY PRIUS, ICE MELTING GAS …..>55MPG WINTER >60 MPG SUMMER..SUMMER GOING 70 MPH HIGHEST I GOT WAS 67 MPG …THIS IS HIGHWAY MILES…I TRAVEL JUST UNDER 1000 MILES A WEEK OR 46000 MILES A YEAR….. THE CLEAN GAS I GET <50 MPG SUMMER AND <43 MPG WINTER HIGHWAY MILES ….IS THAT CHANGE?…. 10% ETHANOL GAS SUMMER IGET < 45 MPG AND WINTER I GET <35 MPG…..HIGHWAY MILES .. IS THAT DEMOCrats IDEA OF CHANGE?????????????????? I AM PAYING 3.99 A GAL FOR 10%ETHANOL DOES THAT ADD UP????? THATS CHANGE????? NO THATS DOLLARS…. I JUST BOUGHT ANOTHER TIRE ROLLER .. LETS SEE IF THE DEMOCrats TAX ME ON THAT WILMA I AM HOME YA BA DA BA DO………..

    Comment by rick O shay — Aug 17th 2008 @ 11:00 am

54. I have noticed in my last three or four tanks of gas a decline from 53 mpg (Prius) to 43. (About a 20% decrease in mpg.) Right now I’m struggling to get it up to even 41 (by annoying everyone behind me I’m sure.) I have changed my car air filter and got new tires thinking that could be it. (But it was not.) Are there any gas stations that carry a non-ethanol blend of gas? How do we get some action on this? I agree with the person who posted they are “half serious” about finding out who to sue!

    Comment by Tina — Oct 5th 2008 @ 3:39 pm

55. I live in west virginia but drive mostly in maryland, and there are only 2 stations left in my area that sell straight gasoline. Even the quality of gasoline without ethanol has gone down, example: have an 05 F150 and i use to get 16mpg, but now im down to 12mpg, and if i use any gas with E10 my truck spits, sputters, knocks, and will barely stay running, on E10 it gets 7mpg if im lucky. My camaro used to get 25mpg but now it gets 20mpg on that stupid ethanol

    Comment by wesley — Oct 16th 2008 @ 9:19 am

56. Upon Taking my son to shool this morning I saw a Big sign pure Gas at 1.86.9 a gal this is south carolina so I don’t know about everywear but it sure was a welcome sight. I stopped and put gas in pure gas. Didn’t notice anyone talking about the way they meter that 10% gas but seen to me they would need to change the internal flow componets to measure a diffren’t liquid the specife gravity is diffrent i not an endineer but have worked in the chemical industry for 30 years . We have to use diffrent meters for diffrent liquids

    Comment by kurt — Nov 18th 2008 @ 11:09 am

57. Is there an additive to counteract the ethanol?

    Comment by jim — Dec 13th 2008 @ 4:23 am

58. Absolutely the worst thing to do…add ethanol. I religiously take my gas mileage, and as soon as NY went to E10, my mileage went from 17.5 to 13.7, >20% decrease. It doesn’t take a mathematician to realize that +10% ethanol, -20% mileage, we as a nation are actually using more “gas”.

    Comment by Keith — Dec 18th 2008 @ 5:35 pm

59. I have 3 street bikes, a Jeep with over 200,000 miles and a Ford Taurus twin cam with over 100,000 miles. I have noticed no significant drop in fuel mileage running E10 fuels. It has been my experience that most folks methodology for checking actual fuel mileage is suspect at best and this would include those who rely on in vehicle mileage computers because the source for their test data is an on board computer that receives data which is known to be off by as much as 3% right from the start due to odometer error. Both the Jeep and the Taurus are still well within the EPA fuel mileage ratings as suggested by Consumer Reports for their respective years. If E10 was an issue this would not be possible on vehicles with the kind of mileage these have.

    Comment by Charlie — Dec 20th 2008 @ 8:43 am

60. I have been using Ethanol since the 70’s (It used to be called Gasahol) in all my vehicles. But never tracked my mpg’s.

    I bought a 2008 Prius which gives me constant mpg feedback. My results: 44-47 mpg with straight gas, 38-41 mpg with Ethanol E10. This is more than a 10% reduction in mpg.

    Comment by Ed — Jan 2nd 2009 @ 7:18 pm

61. I have a 2007 Prius.
    42.1 mpg driving 999 miles in December of 2007 on regular gas.
    37.1 mpg driving 967 miles in December of 2008 on E10.
    11% worse on E10. This is absurd. Write to your Congressman.

    Comment by ben — Jan 15th 2009 @ 9:11 pm

62. I have a 2008 Acura TSX and it shows mpg on the info screen. For the first year, avg. was 32+ (all highway) and 25/26 (mix). After we got switched to E10, it is 29 (all highway) and 20/21 (mix) which by the way is more consistent with EPA ratings which also means that the new EPA ratings were revised to take into account E10 and driving conditions. So, the drop is definitely not 1-5% as suggested on http://www.ethanol.org website.

    Comment by Jesse — Feb 20th 2009 @ 11:52 am

63. I have a 97 Chevy blazer, i use to get 350 miles per tank not with e10 i get 175 per tank. I’m self employed and can’t afford this crap, either get rid of e10 or make all e10 gas $0.25 a gal. I also HAD a 96 Grand Prix until the motor locked the mechanic told me he has had a lot of that 3.1 v6 motors with warped heads cause of e10. Who do i submit the bill to for the cost of the car?

    Comment by dana — Feb 26th 2009 @ 12:11 am

64. I’m out in CA for a few months. I used to love ARCO gas ’cause it was cash only and 10 cents cheaper. My mileage dropped to 37 to 39 mpg in the 2008 Prius (which is miserable for a Prius). I started thinking maybe ARCO was using ethanol, but could not find out for sure. It wasn’t listed on the pump, and the forums couldn’t tell me. It sure felt like E10 was the culprit.

    Out of curiosity, I got a half tank of Shell just down the block, and it jumped to 42 mpg, then my next tank at Shell was 44 mpg, and this last tank is now 46 mpg. My theory is, I think all the ethanol burned out of the tank after 3 fillings. I’m not going back to ARCO, sorry ARCO.

    Here is the math:

    Shell is more cost effective even though it costs 10 cents more per gallon. from 37 to 46 mpg = 20 % improvement in mpg, while it only costs $2.10 at ARCO vs $2.20 at Shell = only 5% more cost per gallon. I’m saving 15% at Shell even though it costs more.

    Comment by Ed — Feb 26th 2009 @ 9:47 am

65. Some shocking facts:
    - my Prius is, like many, down 12%-17%
    - it looks like big oil snuck ethanol into the EPA as one of six oxigenators in about 1990 – but asked that E10 be exempt from testing; the EPA refused but Bush Sr granted a waiver in perpertuity
    - thereafter big oil started sneaking 1-5% E into our gas, and people’s mpg started going down
    - the consumer reports peopke tested pump gas (othern with Ethanol at E5 to E10) and explained the differeence of EPA and pump mpg as “driving habits”
    - it looks like E10 thanges the burn rate of gasoline so that the burn time is lengthened and about 7% to 25% of the gas energy is wasted – pushing the piston after it has gone by.
    - so people is states that had slowly increasing E content never saw a drop, but people who had MTBE gas saw a sudden bug drop
    - we’re apparently all helpless – we’ve been scammed for 20 years!

    - E10 is increasing our foriegn oil demand by about 15-20%!nnThat costs us for gas, and also by push demand that causes shortages, and also by forcing rises in shipping costs for, like, milk

    Write your congressman to have E10 tested by the EPA!

    Comment by Dr_SFZed — Feb 26th 2009 @ 11:42 pm

66. Very Interesting article that might explain the huge variation between ARCO and Shell and other gas station mpg differences. This article states two things. 1) This is the first time the EPA has granted a testing exemption (not sure what a testing exemption is), and 2) the Ethanol percentage can vary from 4% to 24%. Yikes !!

    http://www.renewableenergyworl.....o-renergie

    Here is an excerpt from this page:

    In the U.S., the primary method for blending ethanol into gasoline is splash blending. The ethanol is “splashed” into the gasoline either in a tanker truck or sometimes into a storage tank of a retail station. Renergie believes the inaccuracy and manipulation of splash blending may be eliminated by precisely blending the ethanol and unleaded gasoline at the point of consumption.

    A variable blending pump would ensure the consumer that E10 means the fuel entering the fuel tank of the consumer’s vehicle is 10 percent ethanol (rather than the current range of 4 percent ethanol to at least 24 percent ethanol that the splash blending method provides) and 90% gasoline, Renergie said.

    Comment by Ed — Feb 27th 2009 @ 5:14 pm

67. One more very interesting article:

    MIC, Other Groups Ask EPA for More Ethanol Tests

    Fourteen organizations, including the Motorcycle Industry Council, recently called for “unbiased and comprehensive testing” before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits the use of mid-level ethanol blends in engines.

    http://poweretblog.com/2009/01.....nol-tests/

    The letter contends the existing test results suggest mid-level ethanol blends might be incompatible with current motor vehicle and non-road equipment engines, might cause emission control devices or systems to fail, might defeat engines’ safety features and could lead to significantly higher emissions during the engines’ lifespan.

    Comment by Ed — Feb 27th 2009 @ 5:17 pm

68. I drive an older car (1989) and my mileage drop is about 2-3 MPG with Ethanol, or around 10%. I track my mileage using the fuel logbook at GasBuddy.com.

    Comment by Mike R — Mar 4th 2009 @ 11:59 pm

69. Yep. Seems to be 10% or more is a normal drop in mpg.

    I just don’t get how such a smart bunch of people (All of the U.S) got scammed into thinking this will save our countries energy and pollution problem without doing adequate testing !!

    If you add 10% Ethanol, and you get 10% less mpg. Tell me exactly what we are saving?

    Comment by Ed — Mar 5th 2009 @ 12:22 am

70. where in california can i find gas without ethanol
    does anyone know.
    i have tested at some gas stations and it seems to have 5% ethanol

    Comment by bob — Mar 26th 2009 @ 2:10 am

71. An article in the LA Times says that at the beginning of 2004, all gasoline sold in the California was required to carry 5.6% ethanol.

    Also, something I didn’t know till I just read this today: Ethanol appears to damage boat fuel tanks made of fiberglass.

    Comment by Ed — Mar 26th 2009 @ 6:56 pm

72. My fuel-injected 2002 Harley low rider gets just abour 50 mpg on pure high octane gas, and about 47 mpg when 10% ethanol is added. In otherwords, just under a 10% decrease. That’s a pretty carefully computed estimate: bikes have small fuel tanks, and you really want to keep track of how far you can get on a tank.

    Comment by Catch — May 18th 2009 @ 11:29 pm

73. I just finished an 8,000 mile road trip in a lincoln town car, and this road trip was the first time I paid any attention to fuel economy and ethanol.

    I found my drop in efficiency was at *least* 10 percent, which means that when I buy E10, I’m basically buying 10 percent inert filler and 90 percent gas, yet paying for all 100 percent.

    I hadn’t bothered trying to compare in the past, because my daily driving isn’t consistent enough to offer an unbiased test. This road trip, however, was pretty darned consistent. And out of the 300+ gallons I put into my car, about 50 gallons were E10. (Once I noticed the drop, I became religious about searching for pure gasoline). When I drove with E10, I was doing the exact same sort of cruise-controlled highway driving as when I drove with actual gasoline.

    Most interesting to me was that in some of the corn belt areas (the states all ran together, to be honest) stations sold both E10 *and* real gas, and charged more for the real gas. Meaning that where they’re producing this ethanol, and most knowledgeable about it, consumers *know* that E10 is crud and will pay extra not to buy it.

    Nothing is more maddening than needing gas, getting off the interstate, and finding that dreaded “This fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol” sticker. At a bare minimum, E10 should have to be labeled on the price billboard for the station so you don’t have to find out once you reach the pump.

    We’re being rooked, and in many cases, this sham actually *increases* our oil dependency, rather than decreasing it. At best, for most, it appears to be a zero gain (and that doesn’t include any petroleum consumed producing the corn).

    Comment by Interloper — Jun 10th 2009 @ 4:28 am

74. I just took a trip and regular 87 octane gave me 26.6 mpg. As I got into Kansas where 10% ethanol is added my mileage dropped to 19.9

    This is a total scam.

    Comment by Hammer — Jun 25th 2009 @ 1:05 am

75. i have noticed a drop in gas milage and power, since new york went to 10% (water)ethanol in gas. and just wait till it goes to 15% .the older cars will be blowing pistons all over the place. just the government destroying our lives a little at a time

    Comment by peter — Jun 25th 2009 @ 10:09 pm

76. When I started driving my ‘49 Dodge Power Wagon this year, I had driveabilty problems that were due to a lean fuel mixture- had to run with the choke partially out to get any color on the plugs. All the plugs were affected, so after eliminating things like air leaks and inadequate fuel pressure/volume, it came down to needing more fuel. I used to get 10-12 mpg- OK for a flathead in a 6800 lb truck, now with my choke-enhanced fuel delivery, I get about 5 mpg. Now I get to experiment with main jet drilling- and main jets for 60 yr old carburetors aren’t very common! All the gas stations in Maine pump E10- an oil company decision, not a State mandate. Maybe it’s time for a nationwide class-action lawsuit- The oil companies shouldn’t have too many allies after last year’s attempt to break the $5 per gal mark!

    Comment by david — Jun 30th 2009 @ 3:53 pm

77. We need two things:

    1) Eliminate the waiver for E10 testing in the EPA. Or more specifically, reuire that the EPA test each gas mixture (within two percent or whatever) before that mixture can be sold.

    2) Require that a federal agency test the gas at the pump, randomly, for each service station, to assess its content.

    A class action lawsuit might be useful, but the above is what we need to fix the problem.

    Comment by Dr_SFZed — Jun 30th 2009 @ 5:42 pm

78. In Maine, the oil companies’ decision to make life easy for themselves leads to potentially life-threating situations for boaters and snowmobilers. When you’re 40 miles offshore in the North Atlantic with a dead engine when the weather starts making up, you’re on the way to becoming just a memory. Ditto for the snowmobiler whose engine siezes up at 20 below 15 miles from the nearest road. In my opinion, E10 and non-oxygenated gasoline should be available in equal quantities, at equal grades, and at equal pricing- then let the consumer be the judge. I suspect the oil companies won’t do this unless they’re about to lose a considerable amount of cash. I also think that under an equal availablilty scenario, E10 won’t stick around any longer than a purse-snatcher.

    Comment by david — Jul 1st 2009 @ 6:08 pm

79. Many aspects of the use of corn based ethanol in motor fuel are well known. This “renewable” source of energy was alleged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and start the nation on the path to energy independence. In the pursuit of these goals, treated as being akin to motherhood, the federal government has mandated wide usage of gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. Billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to subsidizing the production of ethanol for use in fuel. I will show that using 10% ethanol blended in gasoline results in higher petroleum usage than if the ethanol were not used.

    For reference, here are some salient facts regarding the use of corn based ethanol in motor fuel:
    1. Using ethanol in our fuel almost certainly does NOT cut the emissions of carbon dioxide, especially if deforestation to grow corn is considered. Further, it has been documented that ethanol leads to increased emissions of VOC’s and oxides of nitrogen. (California requested but was denied exemption to EPA mandated ethanol usage.)
    2. The use of corn to produce fuel has raised food prices around the world, often resulting in needless third world starvation.
    3. Many gasoline powered machines, such as boats, lawn, farm, and construction equipment are damaged by ethanol in their fuel. Apparently some modern cars are affected also, notably certain recent Lexus models.
    4. Ethanol cannot be transported in gasoline pipelines. This means it must be moved by truck or rail. Not only does that add to the cost and to highway congestion, but there is a safety issue as evidenced by two recent horrible accidents (one truck and the derailment of tank cars in Chicago resulting in fierce fires and at least one fatality).
    5. A huge quantity of water is needed to make ethanol from corn, and this aggravates shortages of fresh water in many parts of our nation.

    However, one aspect of ethanol has not previously been considered. That is that it very likely INCREASES the nation’s consumption of fossil fuel. But, you say, the very purpose of using ethanol is to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum. I will show that a given trip, say one that would require 100 gallons of unadulterated gasoline would require more fossil fuel if the trip were made with a 10% ethanol blend (E10).

    Consider: Based on data from the EPA, a gallon of ethanol contains about 76,100 BTU, while a typical gallon of gasoline has 114,000 BTU. Crunching the numbers shows that E10 has about 3.3% less energy than 100% gasoline and thus could be expected to decrease fuel mileage by that percentage. If the only degradation in gas mileage with E10 were 3.3%, you would not be reading this blog. However, I have been fortunate to find a local source of 100% gasoline. I have made a careful comparison of mileage with E10 vs. that with pure gasoline. It is well known that gas mileage varies depending on whether the driving is highway or local. So in order to make a valid comparison, I have taken advantage of the trip computer in my 2008 Nissan Rogue and recorded the average speed (mph) for every tank full of fuel. See chart below. For the (tank average) speed range of 27 to 53 MPH, using pure gasoline gave me an average of 7.8% better mileage than E10. Others on this blog have reported even higher savings in mileage with pure gasoline.

    Return now to that hypothetical trip that took 100 gallons of pure gasoline (E0). Based on my experience, the same trip would require 107.8 gallons of E10. Agreed? Ten percent of this E10 usage would be 10.78 gallons of ethanol. Well, from that we note that the energy equivalent of the ethanol would be 7.2 gallons of gasoline. (10.78 x 76,100 / 114,00 = 7.2) But not even ethanol protagonists allege that a gallon of ethanol requires less than 75% of its energy content to produce. So that 7.2 gallons would need the equivalent of 5.4 gallons of gasoline to produce. (7.2 x 0.75 = 5.4) Thus the trip with E10 would need 102.4 gallons of gasoline or its equivalent. (107.8 – 10.78 + 5.4 = 102.4) Which is to say that by using 10% ethanol in my fuel, I am using 2.4% more fossil fuel than if our benighted government had not modified our motor fuel in the first place.

    The bottom line is — it is patently obvious that the government’s ethanol mandates and subsidies have but one indisputable effect. They enrich the corn growers and the ethanol producers at the expense of all the rest of us taxpayers. Now who in government will stand up to the farm and ethanol producer (think ADM) lobbies and declare that there should be an end to this blatant scam on the American public? Think of what those billions in wasted subsidies could do for our troubled economy or health care.

    Comment by KeoweeHarry — Aug 13th 2009 @ 8:36 am

80. In the recent past I was using Shell gasoline because it did not contain ethanol, but now it has an ethanal blend of 10%. As others have stated, I also track gas mileage and have done so for many years. On my current vehicle (’07 Ram, 5.7 liter Hemi) I have seen a 10% drop in mpg since being ‘forced’ to use the blend. To me this is an invisable tax since the cost per gallon of gas did not go down when the blend was introduced in our area (southeastern Alabama). I say “forced” because there is no gasoline with 0% ethanol, due to the federal mandate, available in our area. If anyone knows of any brand that still sell gasoline and not an ethanol blend, please let everyone know.

    Comment by Daniel Stamaris — Aug 18th 2009 @ 11:59 am

81. I spent a good deal of time experimenting with carb settings and jet drilling on my Power Wagon- my mileage went from 4.5 to 6- then quietly, witout telling anyone, the oil companies in Maine went from 10% to 5%! I’m now at my original jetting, and am getting 9-10 Mpg. Legislation mandating the sale of non-ethanol gas alongside E10 is set to be introduced, so it looks like the oil companies are going back to a blend that’s been sold for the last twenty years with minimal problems. I took samples from all the major brands and two independents, and it was remarkable to see everyone right at 5% excepting one independent at 6%. The ethanol is blended at the terminal as the tanker loads up- but they must have invested in some special equipment to get that kind of consistency! They used to “splash blend”- pour the ethanol into the load and let it mix as the truck drove down the road.
    As far as the “fuel vs food” debate is concerned, raising livestock for protein nets about a 1% conversion effeciency, whereas the leftover mash from ethanol production can be dried and processed into protein with a 10% conversion effeciency. Presently it’s being landfilled or used to slop hogs. There’s no shortage of carbohydrates in the world- protein is the big problem. If the ethanol idea was run correctly, we would repower our farm equipment with engines optimized to use pure ethanol- we can produce enough to keep our farm equipment moving in the event of a catastrophic oil shortage. We live right on the edge as it is- less than 1/2 of 1% of the US population grows food, We’re down to 45 days of grain reserves (used to be 4-5 years), and supermarket warehouses typically have about 3 days supply. Right now, 21% of the US ethanol plants are idle- they’re going out of business left and right because it’s being imported from Brazil. No one is being helped by the present situation except the oil companies- amazing how things always seem to work out for them!

    Comment by david — Aug 19th 2009 @ 4:46 pm

82. The station where I normally fill has just gone to 10% ethanol. My 1994 Saturn was consistently getting ~43mpg. Now it’s 38. Gas costs the same. Bottom line, the net result of using ethanol is that the consumer is now paying more, with ZERO added benefit.

    Comment by Rob — Aug 27th 2009 @ 10:44 am

83. I have a 2004 Saab 93 2.0T / I used to get 24 miles per gallon up to 2007 then last year through the first quarter of 2009 20 miles to 22 miles per gallon. I don’t know if they are putting more ethanol in the gas but I’m actually getting between 16 to 18 miles per gallon now. I’m even changing the oil every 5K miles to see improvement and had a tune up done… no luck. The Government should regulate what is going on. Pretty soon we are going to have expensive repairs due to this ethanol on cars that weren’t design for it. Europe, South America and other places don’t mix Gasoline with Ethanol. They have indivual pumps for Diesel, Ethanol and Gasoline. Does anyone know a lawyer that would like to sue the oil industries and everyone behind them?

    Comment by Belen — Aug 28th 2009 @ 5:27 pm

84. I drive 100 miles per day, same course, same habits. My 95 Taurus usually makes the week on one tank, low fuel light on Friday afternoon. My local Exxon switched to E10. Now I get the low fuel light on Thursday Mornings. A NOTICABLE drop in efficiency.
    I don’t think we are imagining this, my checkbook reflects the change!
    Somebody please notify your lawmakers!

    Comment by Mike Wilder — Sep 3rd 2009 @ 10:44 pm

85. I notice a 5 to 10% drop in gas mileage when using gas from a pump that says “may contain up to 10% ethanol.”

    Comment by Marty Nemko — Sep 24th 2009 @ 3:56 am

86. I have a 2001 Ford Sport Trac, until they started adding ethonol I was getting 20-22 around town and 24-26 on trips. I keep track of my gas milage all the time. Now with ethanol I get 17-19 town and 20-22 highway. Have same proble with my wifes Dodge Ram dropped 20% both ways. Who do you coplain to about this. I think we all should send letters to Congress State and Federal, they are the idoits that made it a law to put ethanol in our gasoline. Plus I have had to replace the gas lines in my mowers and weedeater they are eaten up from the ethanol. Let’s do something.

    Comment by Lynn Roach — Oct 1st 2009 @ 7:26 pm

87. The oil companies got a permanent waiver from Pres Bush Sr in about 1990 – they could add up to 5% Ethanol without telling anyone and up to 10% without having it tested by the EPA. Now they are asking for a 15% waiver.

    E10 has NEVER been tested by the EPA. The EPA tests pure gas. The deviations in mpg may be due Exx in gas since 1990.

    Now the oil companies are quietly trying to get up to E15!

    Stop them!

    Comment by Dr_SFZed — Oct 4th 2009 @ 5:36 pm

88. I’m trying. I have been in contact with both SC senators and our congressman. How about the rest of you? At the risk of repeating myself, if E10 degrades fuel mileage by 7% or more, then putting 10% ethanol in our fuel actually increases our consumption of petroleum. My careful mileage comparisons show 7.8% better mileage with pure gasoline. This scam on the American public must be stopped. Please – do write your legislators and newspaper editors and get the word out.

    Comment by KeoweeHarry — Oct 4th 2009 @ 5:52 pm

89. The milage in my 4 cylinder 1999 Dodge Caravan dropped from 28mpg to 21mpg when I had to start using E10 in Fl. Also my old lawn mower float valve started sticking every time I use it. That is with Stabill additives. And my 4-stoke outboard motor must have additives or it will not run. The government subsidies make E10 cost taxpayers/users much much more than gas and the additives and agrevation also take a toll.

    Comment by Jerrems — Oct 16th 2009 @ 6:13 am

Leave a comment