Jeep Commander Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I recently filled up at my local shell station for my weekly run and noticed halfway through the week i was getting 3-4mpg less than I usually run. Checked all air/fuel/oil filters and found nothing wrong. When I went back to the same station I noticed a "10% ethanol" sticker on the pump. thinking that may be my problem, since I have never seen the sticker before I drove down the street to a chevron, checked all the pumps for ethanol notices (there were none) and filled up the tank. My mileage went back up to previous #. Just wondering if anyone has had similar problems or if anyone knows where I can find links to which gas companies put max amounts of corn based ethanol in their gas. To my knowledge (based on pumps around town) Shell has the highest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,796 Posts
I have that problem every year :( in the winter the freaking enviro-nazi's require us to use a blended fuel that contains ethanol which also leaves a white residue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Here our Mid-grade is only found in 10% ethanol, could run the lower grade regular gas, but it is more expensive, even with the 10% blend still avg about 16-17 mixed driving
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm in/around Portland, Oregon. Our gas comes pretty mixed. Most stations either don't post the ethanol sticker or haven't added it to the amount required for a sticker posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,262 Posts
Those stations selling a 10% blend without a posting are in violation of federal regs.
A 10% blend of oxygenate [ethanol] means the fuel actually has oxygen content. That means it has 10% less available BTU,s by volume.
The original idea had nothing to do with going green.
The intent was to make fixed fuel delivery vehicles [carbureted] operate in a leaner condition at the same throttle opening. This was proposed in the mid 80,s.
The oil companys responded by trying to alert the lawmakers that this idea would not be effective with fuel injection on the horizon.
As usual, the government decided this was a ploy and the oil companies were only trying to kill the idea because they didn't want to bear the huge expense in creating a new process added to the refining process.
It was made a requirement, and the oil companies began marketing the blend in the mid 90,s.
Our prices were adjusted accordingly. The product was initially only to be marketed in large cities that were failing to meet E.P.A. air quality standards.
So, in the Chicago area, I've been dealing with this crap for over 13 years.
What the E.P.A. isn't saying: The co-solvents required to keep the alcohol in suspension are likely more hazardous to health than straight gas.
Your fuel mileage will drop by almost the same percentage as the alcohol blend.
This occurs because the front o2 sensors see the lean condition and enrich the fuel mixture to compensate.
You will experience strange failures due to alcohol co-solvents.
The most common is fuel level senders becoming inaccurate.
The co-solvents coat the rheostat on the sender grid.
They are also likely the cause of pre-mature fuel pump failure.
Those of you who have removed spark plugs and found a green coating are looking at burned co-solvents.
If you ever remove a in tank fuel pump you will find a white coating on it and inside the entire fuel tank. More co-solvents.
Oh well, now we think we're being good to the environment by burning a renewable resource.
Well, at whos expense?
Farmers are tickled, but since were burning our crops, instead of eating them, there's less available to eat. Well if you bought groceries lately and noticed the price rise, don't blame fuel delivery expense as the only cause.
The percentage of mileage lost is slightly less with e-85 [85% ethanol] because it has a much higher R.O.N. and your ECM advances the ignition enouph to compensate, just in case you were wondering.
My own tests on the Commander running e-85 resulted in the expected mileage loss.
By calculating fuel as cost per mile though, the lower price didn't pan out, and I was spending more to travel the same distance.
In case you can't tell, I have concluded alcohol is not the answer.

.........Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thank you. That makes things much clearer. The only stations in the Pacific Northwest that I've seen those stickers at are shell stations and a few Chevron stations in Seattle, WA.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,629 Posts
Ethenol is supposed to be better for the environment but worse for mpg. In actuallity to convert corn/wood ect to be 1 barrel burnable fuel it takes about 1.5 as much fossil fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,796 Posts
Biofuels is an idiotic way to find alternative fuel solutions. This is not the oil for food program the UN was supposed to enforce. Biofuels are partly to blame for the worlds food supply dropping as farmers convert to making biofuels due to governments desperation to make it work by subsidizing the corn.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
i had the same problem up in montana.

the pumps do not say how much ethanol is in the gas. but i lost 4+ mpg on my trip. when i use wyoming gasoline i get 4+ mpg better.

the pumps in montana say "MAY CONTAIN ETHANOL" IT DOES AND THEY ARE STILL CHARGING THE REGULAR FUEL PRICE!!!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,337 Posts
We're stuck with that E-10 garbage all along the Front Range, and my mileage reflects that accordingly. I've also noticed some hesitation because of it, and I'm running new plugs since 30k.

Go green my a$$, the only green is what the corn farmers are reaping due to our government's lack of foresight and greediness for power and control over our lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I bet the hummers they run aren't inhaling ethanol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Just swung by the pumps on the way home.....

87 octane unleaded, no ethanol 3.55/gal
89 octane unleaded, 10% ethanol 3.45/gal
91 octane unleaded, 10% ethanol 3.65/gal

I run the 87 stuff in the lawnmower, snowblower, etc. as I heard that it will deteriorate the engine in those, and from looking at previous posts, seems that unwanted damage will occur in the jeep also, even though the "party line" is that it wont change a thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
The whole Ethanol deal is a scam, as others noted. What always cracked me up was that while oxygenated fuel (aka with ethanol) supposedly burns cleaner, it is less efficient, the additives used to keep the alcohol in suspension are more toxic, there are more fuel system associated failures, and the expenses and costs to produce, distribute, and mix the ethanol makes it far less efficient, but thats what you get from the Al Gore crowd. Symbolism over substance.............

ADDED: I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but if you are 10% less efficient overall, that means you are using MORE fuel, per mile and hence have more overall emissions or pollutants per mile? It seems to me the that a more efficient fuel would polute less? or is it just that ethanol mixed fuels has lower of certain pollutants?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
In July I drove to Wisconsin for vacation from central Texas. In Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri the gas was regular 87 octane. I was getting good gas milage (22-23mpg highway). In Illinois and Wisconsin there was 10% ethonal in the fuel. Those tanks my milage dropped to 19-20mpg (highway). Gas cost the same (plus or minus 5 cents) in all states except Illinois where it was 20-30 cents per gallon higher. I really don't like the gas with ethonal in it.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Ethenol is supposed to be better for the environment but worse for mpg. In actuallity to convert corn/wood ect to be 1 barrel burnable fuel it takes about 1.5 as much fossil fuel.
I totally agree with you on this... read this link:

http://www.fuel-testers.com/list_e10_engine_damage.html

Bring us back our 100% gasoline... the E10 idea is nothing more than insurance for the car/truck industry to force us to get our vehicle repaired/replaced more often than ever... don't you all agree?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,262 Posts
Well,
As I said in a earlier post, niether the oil companies nor the manufacturers wanted E-10
And all for the reasons cited in the article. Specificly the fact that older cars, heck, pretty much anything with a carburetor, and later model stuff that does not have the specific components required to tolerate alcohol of any percentage.
Vehicle manufacturers always embraced the e-85 flex fuel idea as then every vehicle made would have the compatable components required already installed.
And of course, if they all have it, then the component prices are driven down.
Oil companies are ok with it as well as they really are refining companies and drilling is expensive.
Currently, I also see no gain in marketing E-10 beyond helping a farmers bottom line.
The ideal situation at this time is regular/premium straight gas and E-85 for those who have the equipment and desire to use it.

Trouble is, beyond grousing about it among ourselves, we can't seem to find anyone who will listen and act.

.........Rob
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top