E10 (ethanol/ gas) and 2-cycle engines

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline, although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3% when using E10.

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline, although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3% when using E10.

Because there is no single national standard for blending, duh.

All gasoline vehicles can use E10. Currently only light-duty vehicles with a model year 2001 or greater can use E15. Only "flex-fuel" vehicles can use gasoline with an ethanol content greater than E15.

The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than "pure" gasoline, although this varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added to the ethanol. Thus, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by up to 3.3% when using E10.

You are -slowly- learning what we have known for decades. You don't need to parrot it back at us, just stop ranting and listen.

I beg to differ, as I lost fifteen percent of my mileage when Oregon moved to E10 "oxygenated fuel". Feh!

Larry Jaques fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The ethanol itself is 33% less efficient, but it has other mitigating effects on the combustion process and temperature, moisture absorption, etc. that can alter the overall efficiency of the 'fuel', et. al., far beyond the proportional efficiency difference between the two before they're mixed.

Lloyd

Well, the actual energy deficiency is about 50%, so if the engine is set up to run on it efficiently, E10 will cost 5% in fuel economy (which is what I've found to be pretty close) Some engines that are already set to run lean will suffer a LOT more when ethanol is added to the equation.

hA hA - ARE you being fooled by our government again ?

I have a 2004 S10 long bed 4x4 truck. It is NOT Flex. It runs very rough on E10 and won't pull (in bed) a load or have a passenger in the seat and you will ping to heaven moving up a hill. A 40' slope that is.

To keep the pinging out I had to upgrade to middle grade gas which is E5 ish. Nothing official - just more real gas and less food but denatured alcohol. And Ethanol is hygroscopic. In some new cars and trucks, the tank is pressurized and fuel is forced to the engine. Others like my truck has a pump in the tank and the tank by requirements must be open to the air. Air pressure on the top of the gas pushes it though the pump to the engine. This brings in water. Lots of water. The water dilutes the gas even more. Yes the ethanol absorbs a lot of it, but not all and the ethanol is water bound. Loosing energy and the economy goes down the tubes.

Can't believe everything the Feds put out. Some is self serving and some is from condensed data that throws out large chunks of real life data.

Martin

Lie lie double lie. Notice the .gov figures don't fit. My Chevy doesn't. lawn tractors didn't . New ones might. My new (year old) Deer from Deer not a box store - is Flex but mostly E10.

My Rav4 doesn't say flex and doesn't drive worth crap with E10. Only on flat non pressing and forget acceleration onto a freeway... It is a 2010.

Martin