How long does it take running no ethanol fuel to see mpg gain?

[tock13]

I ran through a tank of 89 octane non-ethanol gas and got the the same MPG as I did on Costco gas, 20.8 mpg.

I read there can be mpg gains with non-ethanol gas but maybe it takes a few tanks to get there?

what’s the consensus on that? Do I need to run through a few more, or is it horses pucky on better mpg?

Sponsored

 

[Brian_B]

I don't think I'd be holding my breath waiting for that MPG boost

 

[tock13]

I don't think I'd be holding my breath waiting for that MPG boost

Yeah, I was thinking it may be like chasing the wind but I thought I read here somewhere it helps. I didn’t see a gain.

 

[Brian_B]

Some folks have reported that their Bronco hated ethanol-free gas and they saw major MPG drops. That's not been terribly consistent, and doesn't exactly track with what I would expect, but I also wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Montana Bronco]

I think you get the same MPG no matter what fuel you use. I certainly don’t notice a difference.

 

[hilmar2k]

You're looking at a max of 3%, under ideal circumstances. That's less than 1 MPG. That's going to be hard to discern on one tank of gas based on how many other factors can weigh in on fuel economy. My guess is that you did get better mileage than you would have gotten had you filled up with E10.

 

[RagnarKon]

Non-ethanol fuel has 3% more energy than the typical 10% ethanol fuel.

Highly unlikely you'll see 3% improvement on your MPG, because frankly internal combustion engines are nowhere near 100% efficient. But assuming we live in a perfectly ideal world for a second... if you were getting 20.8 MPG before... you should expect to get at most 21.4 MPG.

If we live in a more realistic world where internal combustion engines are around 25-30% efficient. 30% of 3% is 0.9%... which means probably closer to 20.98 MPG.

 

[tock13]

I appreciate all the insight. The cost difference was pretty significant and the results tell me to stay with Costco. Cheap gas and a buck fifty for the hotdog. Win-win.

 

[Fordified1]

The gain, if any, won’t offset the cost. You’d have better luck experimenting with 93 which of course is also higher. It takes a while for the vehicle to learn a fuel change to see any advantage from it…. Or not. Best bet is experiment with driving styles.

 

[CitrusBronco]

Maybe these observations don’t take in account octane rating is regional. The non ethanol octane here is like 91 or higher the Sunoco station I think is 95.
A 95 octane is going to give better mileage than 89.

 

[Umichigan1]

Maybe these observations don’t take in account octane rating is regional. The non ethanol octane here is like 91 or higher the Sunoco station I think is 95.
A 95 octane is going to give better mileage than 89.

Just interjecting my thoughts into the thread... I'd be shocked to discover that using higher octane fuel could possibly save you money on fuel cost. The mpg gains have to be negligible at best. I keep wondering why people insist on using an octane for which the engine was not designed? Just put the GOAT mode on Sport and pretend that you used high-octane fuel. Save a ton of money.

 

[Fmuguira]

+1 to Fordified1 …. Your driving style is biggest influence. I d guess most people could improve their mpg 5-10% if they d be conscious of their right foot and braking also!

FYI, I ve seen .4-.5 mpg increase on nearly all my vehicles running non-ethanol over ethanol. Best way to check is on highway, same drives AND in same conditions. Around town, lights and traffic can mask or magnify the two fuel comparisons quite easily.

 

[tock13]

Driving style is definitely a huge factor. My partner has basically the same Bronco I do 4dr, Sas 2.3/auto and she gets between 17 and 18 mpg per tank while I am averaging 20.8 over the year I’ve had it, both hand calculated.

We took a trip in hers and I drove and got 23.3 on one leg of the drive so the right foot has a lot to do with mpg.

I’m not paranoid about the mpg, it’s just interesting to try to find tricks that work.

 

[bkirchhoff]

I appreciate all the insight. The cost difference was pretty significant and the results tell me to stay with Costco. Cheap gas and a buck fifty for the hotdog. Win-win.

Octane rating will have a bigger impact than just non-ethanol of the same octane rating. I use 91 octane, non-ethanol in all of my vehicles. Motorcycles especially crave higher octane and don’t love ethanol. Same with all my small engines (snowblower, wood chipper).

The biggest reason I use non-ethanol is that my vehicles can sometimes sit for a long time. Motorcycles from November until April or so. And my Bronco is currently sitting for over a month while I’m on the trip I’m currently on. Ethanol is hydrophilic and wants to bond with water — evaporated water in the air over time will lead to water mixing with your fuel and nothing good come from that. If you run through a tank with ethanol relatively quickly, it won’t have time to bond and add water to your tank. If you let it sit there for many months, it can. I’ve had to drain motorcycle tanks when this happens. No fun. So I just run everything on high octane, non-ethanol so it’s one less thing to worry about.

 

[bkirchhoff]

Some folks have reported that their Bronco hated ethanol-free gas and they saw major MPG drops. That's not been terribly consistent, and doesn't exactly track with what I would expect, but I also wouldn't be surprised.

My experience has been the opposite. While on road trips, I sometimes have to use ethanol fuel and see a slight dip if it’s the same octane and on the same road from one tank to the next. It’s minor, but I’ve tracked every drop of fuel that’s been in the Bronco since new and over 15k miles, I’ve documented the dips when the fuel changes and all other conditions remain constant.

Sponsored