E30 experiement
#12
05-13-2008, 05:56 AM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: E30 experiement
Based on an 95 cent price difference, ( 25% discount ) I would say you will come out ahead in the E25 to E30 ranges, and will break even at other blends higher than E10.
I still think E10 is the worst for MPG vs Cost.
I still think E10 is the worst for MPG vs Cost.
#13
05-15-2008, 07:37 PM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southwestern Pa
Posts: 1,747
Re: E30 experiement
After two days of driving with a full tank of E30, one day of sitting in the driveway, this is what my scangauge is reporting:
39.2 mpg tank 55.2 miles driven with this tank
I can not tell any vehicle operating difference. The higher than normal mileage (for me) might be explained by driving on rural roads have little or no traffic. Thus these are good for hypermiling your vehicle.
The real purpose of this post is to show using E30 doesn't mean you MPG immediately drop downward to undesireable levels.
39.2 mpg tank 55.2 miles driven with this tank
I can not tell any vehicle operating difference. The higher than normal mileage (for me) might be explained by driving on rural roads have little or no traffic. Thus these are good for hypermiling your vehicle.
The real purpose of this post is to show using E30 doesn't mean you MPG immediately drop downward to undesireable levels.
Last edited by Billyk; 05-15-2008 at 07:38 PM. Reason: spelling
#14
05-15-2008, 09:05 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: E30 experiement
Three things: I don't want you to be mis-lead.
#1 The ScanGauge is not smart enough to know you are using ethanol. It estimates how much fuel you are useing based on how hard the engine is working... by counting RPM's vs. speed vs. mass of air pulled into the engine for example. The ScanGauge assumes you use 100% gas all the time.*
#2 What the ScanGauge shows is, your FEH is working less hard when burning ethanol. Your FEH is running a few RPM lower as you drive, yet you are getting the same power**, and going the same distance. Thus the ScanGauge calculates higher MPG.
#3 The built-in Ford MPG display looks at different engine data than the ScanGauge. Remember, the SG had to be generic to work in all vehicles. The Ford display does adjust for actual fuel use, unlike the SG estimated fuel use.
The Ford display will show your real MPG using any blend of ethanol, after about a 30 mile adjustment period. If the Ford MPG = 34 and the SG shows 39, divide the two.
34/39 = 0.87 or 87%. That means your car is working only 87% as hard on ethanol.
*It occurs to me that every person in the country using E10 ( by choice or not ) and relying on a SG is getting 3-4% higher data than actual. The SG allows you to adjust for this manually, but how many people do it?
**Race cars use ethanol because they want more power, and are not so concerned with MPG.
The E85 data in my sig is based on gallons pumped, not SG data.
Nice effort Bill. Keep the data coming!
-John
#1 The ScanGauge is not smart enough to know you are using ethanol. It estimates how much fuel you are useing based on how hard the engine is working... by counting RPM's vs. speed vs. mass of air pulled into the engine for example. The ScanGauge assumes you use 100% gas all the time.*
#2 What the ScanGauge shows is, your FEH is working less hard when burning ethanol. Your FEH is running a few RPM lower as you drive, yet you are getting the same power**, and going the same distance. Thus the ScanGauge calculates higher MPG.
#3 The built-in Ford MPG display looks at different engine data than the ScanGauge. Remember, the SG had to be generic to work in all vehicles. The Ford display does adjust for actual fuel use, unlike the SG estimated fuel use.
The Ford display will show your real MPG using any blend of ethanol, after about a 30 mile adjustment period. If the Ford MPG = 34 and the SG shows 39, divide the two.
34/39 = 0.87 or 87%. That means your car is working only 87% as hard on ethanol.
*It occurs to me that every person in the country using E10 ( by choice or not ) and relying on a SG is getting 3-4% higher data than actual. The SG allows you to adjust for this manually, but how many people do it?
**Race cars use ethanol because they want more power, and are not so concerned with MPG.
The E85 data in my sig is based on gallons pumped, not SG data.
Nice effort Bill. Keep the data coming!
-John
#15
05-16-2008, 09:50 AM
Re: E30 experiement
Three things: I don't want you to be mis-lead.
#1 The ScanGauge is not smart enough to know you are using ethanol. It estimates how much fuel you are useing based on how hard the engine is working... by counting RPM's vs. speed vs. mass of air pulled into the engine for example. The ScanGauge assumes you use 100% gas all the time.* If fuel adjustment is set to 0, my SG reads virtually identical to the average economy display in my FEH, i.e., significantly off. Metropolitan Phoenix has had year-round E10 for a long time. The ICE hit is about 12% for E10 vs. straight gas.
#2 What the ScanGauge shows is, your FEH is working less hard when burning ethanol. Your FEH is running a few RPM lower as you drive, yet you are getting the same power**, and going the same distance. Thus the ScanGauge calculates higher MPG. If you are producing the same power at a lower RPM, your engine is working harder, and hence more efficiently. The throttle response will suffer, which is the main reason manufacturers rarely design for max FE. You can never get as much power out of the ICE with ethanol blends unless you can vary the valve timing to increase the DCR in the presence of ethanol. Obviously the FEH can't do that ...yet.
#3 The built-in Ford MPG display looks at different engine data than the ScanGauge. Remember, the SG had to be generic to work in all vehicles. The Ford display does adjust for actual fuel use, unlike the SG estimated fuel use. The Ford display calculates fuel used the same as the SG. Fuel=MAF*LFT/14.68/SFT. Only on vehicles that don't report MAF/LFT/SFT in mode 0x01 will the SG have problems. Or, if under open loop the A/F is not 12.5:1.
The Ford display will show your real MPG using any blend of ethanol, after about a 30 mile adjustment period. If the Ford MPG = 34 and the SG shows 39, divide the two.
34/39 = 0.87 or 87%. That means your car is working only 87% as hard on ethanol. Flex fuel vehicles have more sensors to determine ethanol content that the FEH doesn't have. The FEH doesn't know whether a high LFT is caused by ethanol or a clogged injector/weak fuel pump/fuel leak/etc. That is why the MIL light is illuminated when LFT exceeds 25%.
*It occurs to me that every person in the country using E10 ( by choice or not ) and relying on a SG is getting 3-4% higher data than actual. The SG allows you to adjust for this manually, but how many people do it? In my GM vehicles, the FE display is off by almost exactly 10% on E10, and only about 2-3% when run on straight gas. Much like my FEH.
**Race cars use ethanol because they want more power, and are not so concerned with MPG. The only reason race cars use ethanol is so they can run extremely high compression ratios without detonation. That is because of the much lower energy content of ethanol vs. gas. All things equal, you will always get less power for the same amount of fuel on ethanol blends.
The E85 data in my sig is based on gallons pumped, not SG data.
Nice effort Bill. Keep the data coming!
-John
#1 The ScanGauge is not smart enough to know you are using ethanol. It estimates how much fuel you are useing based on how hard the engine is working... by counting RPM's vs. speed vs. mass of air pulled into the engine for example. The ScanGauge assumes you use 100% gas all the time.* If fuel adjustment is set to 0, my SG reads virtually identical to the average economy display in my FEH, i.e., significantly off. Metropolitan Phoenix has had year-round E10 for a long time. The ICE hit is about 12% for E10 vs. straight gas.
#2 What the ScanGauge shows is, your FEH is working less hard when burning ethanol. Your FEH is running a few RPM lower as you drive, yet you are getting the same power**, and going the same distance. Thus the ScanGauge calculates higher MPG. If you are producing the same power at a lower RPM, your engine is working harder, and hence more efficiently. The throttle response will suffer, which is the main reason manufacturers rarely design for max FE. You can never get as much power out of the ICE with ethanol blends unless you can vary the valve timing to increase the DCR in the presence of ethanol. Obviously the FEH can't do that ...yet.
#3 The built-in Ford MPG display looks at different engine data than the ScanGauge. Remember, the SG had to be generic to work in all vehicles. The Ford display does adjust for actual fuel use, unlike the SG estimated fuel use. The Ford display calculates fuel used the same as the SG. Fuel=MAF*LFT/14.68/SFT. Only on vehicles that don't report MAF/LFT/SFT in mode 0x01 will the SG have problems. Or, if under open loop the A/F is not 12.5:1.
The Ford display will show your real MPG using any blend of ethanol, after about a 30 mile adjustment period. If the Ford MPG = 34 and the SG shows 39, divide the two.
34/39 = 0.87 or 87%. That means your car is working only 87% as hard on ethanol. Flex fuel vehicles have more sensors to determine ethanol content that the FEH doesn't have. The FEH doesn't know whether a high LFT is caused by ethanol or a clogged injector/weak fuel pump/fuel leak/etc. That is why the MIL light is illuminated when LFT exceeds 25%.
*It occurs to me that every person in the country using E10 ( by choice or not ) and relying on a SG is getting 3-4% higher data than actual. The SG allows you to adjust for this manually, but how many people do it? In my GM vehicles, the FE display is off by almost exactly 10% on E10, and only about 2-3% when run on straight gas. Much like my FEH.
**Race cars use ethanol because they want more power, and are not so concerned with MPG. The only reason race cars use ethanol is so they can run extremely high compression ratios without detonation. That is because of the much lower energy content of ethanol vs. gas. All things equal, you will always get less power for the same amount of fuel on ethanol blends.
The E85 data in my sig is based on gallons pumped, not SG data.
Nice effort Bill. Keep the data coming!
-John
#16
05-16-2008, 12:58 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: E30 experiement
Since March I have driven my Insight exclusivly ( other than running the FEH for 10 minutes every three weeks to keep it charged ) so my E85 testing was done about 8 or 9 weeks ago. I'm pretty sure, although my memory fades a little, that the Navi was very accurate when burning high percent ethanol, and the ScanGuage wasn't.
I'm not sure why if they both look at LTFT, since that is primarily what changes.
All I know for sure is, they didn't match very well at all with high percent ethanol.
The Navi was close to reality.
I didn't change any of the stock settings in the SG.
I remember thinking I needed to make a memo to Ron, that in addition to Diesel, Gas, and Hybrid, he needed to add E85 to the settings ( or a % ethanol feature), because the SG was always OVER reporting MPG by quite a bit, and the Navi wasn't.
I'm not sure why if they both look at LTFT, since that is primarily what changes.
All I know for sure is, they didn't match very well at all with high percent ethanol.
The Navi was close to reality.
I didn't change any of the stock settings in the SG.
I remember thinking I needed to make a memo to Ron, that in addition to Diesel, Gas, and Hybrid, he needed to add E85 to the settings ( or a % ethanol feature), because the SG was always OVER reporting MPG by quite a bit, and the Navi wasn't.
Last edited by gpsman1; 05-16-2008 at 01:10 PM.
#17
05-16-2008, 02:25 PM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southwestern Pa
Posts: 1,747
Re: E30 experiement
I went to the gas/petro station today. My fuel gauge reading was just over 3/4 filled. I have traveled 102 miles since the last fillup with E30. I proceeded to put 1.82 gallons of 87 octane gasoline and .66 gallons of E85 and a touch dripped out at the end. Yikes, that computes to around 40mpg by hand/head. My scanguage was reading 39.2 mpg for the tank! I traveled around 38 miles today on a state highway with a speed limit of 55mph. The rest was in the city where EV was frequent. I am surprised by the readings.
#18
05-16-2008, 02:36 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: E30 experiement
I'm a little surprised by that, but then again, I did my E26/E40 testing in Winter!
Maybe it is time for me to test that magical E26 or E30 blend all over again!
Good for you!
Maybe it is time for me to test that magical E26 or E30 blend all over again!
Good for you!
#19
05-19-2008, 07:10 PM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southwestern Pa
Posts: 1,747
Re: E30 experiement
I will be reporting soon on 400 miles of data from driving on the interstate with E30. Unfortunately, I returned home and my PC immediately developed a hardware problem(?) as it is crashing repeatively 
after booting almost fullying into Windows XP. I have to contact my repair specialist and get this corrected prior to posting photos, data and maybe graphs?
after booting almost fullying into Windows XP. I have to contact my repair specialist and get this corrected prior to posting photos, data and maybe graphs?
#20
05-20-2008, 07:29 PM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southwestern Pa
Posts: 1,747
Re: E30 experiement
