Unleaded vs. Super Unleaded

[shultice24]

Here in Iowa, super unleaded (10% ethanol) is usually about 8-12 cents a gallon cheaper than the regular unleaded blend (I'm guessing due to many ethanol plants in the region). I'm not sure if this is the case for many of you or not, but I was just curious as to which blend you fill up with?

Naturally, the ethanol blend is probably the most popular here since it's the cheapest, and that's always what I used to put in my car. A few weeks ago I switched to regular unleaded our of curiosity. While I had been averaging 33-35 mpg, I got 37 on the last tank. Obviously I'll need to try it over a handful of fill-ups to know for sure, but if that increase holds, that probably makes up the price difference.

While the ethanol industry insists otherwise, I've also heard from a few sources that the ethanol-blend might be a bit harder on the engine.

[kork13]

Originally Posted by shultice24

Here in Iowa, super unleaded (10% ethanol) is usually about 8-12 cents a gallon cheaper than the regular unleaded blend (I'm guessing due to many ethanol plants in the region). I'm not sure if this is the case for many of you or not, but I was just curious as to which blend you fill up with?

Naturally, the ethanol blend is probably the most popular here since it's the cheapest, and that's always what I used to put in my car. A few weeks ago I switched to regular unleaded our of curiosity. While I had been averaging 33-35 mpg, I got 37 on the last tank. Obviously I'll need to try it over a handful of fill-ups to know for sure, but if that increase holds, that probably makes up the price difference.

While the ethanol industry insists otherwise, I've also heard from a few sources that the ethanol-blend might be a bit harder on the engine.

In nearly all tests, it's shown that ethanol blends burn less efficiently than non-ethanol blends. It's not that the ethanol is any harder on your engine, it simply does not get as good of a combustion as regular 100% gasoline, and therefore less fuel efficient.

When I fill up with a 10% ethanol blend, I notice about an average 3% drop (1mpg) in my mileage. However, Florida (or my county, or someone) has mandated a 10% blend at all pumps, so it's not even an option for me.

The best way to figure out which is best for you is just to test it. See what mileage you get on 3-4 tanks of regular gasoline vs. the mileage on 3-4 tanks of the ethanol blend. Look at how much $$ you save buying the ethanol blend vs. buying gas, and how much $$ you save from better fuel economy using the regular gasoline vs. the ethanol blend. Just pick the one that is better for you.

Most likely, however, the difference is probably negligible.... From what you've said, with the ethanol blend you save about 4% of cost but lose about 4% of fuel economy, so it's just about a wash.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by shultice24

Here in Iowa, super unleaded (10% ethanol) is usually about 8-12 cents a gallon cheaper than the regular unleaded blend (I'm guessing due to many ethanol plants in the region). I'm not sure if this is the case for many of you or not, but I was just curious as to which blend you fill up with.

We don't have that option here. Interesting question, though. I would definitely track your mileage for a couple of tanks of each type and see what the difference is. One tank probably isn't enough to tell because driving may vary over a short period.

[shultice24]

Hmm, I'm surprised Iowa hasn't mandated 10% only, given that corn composes about 95% of our economic output.

I will fill up at least 4-5 more times with unleaded to really know for sure.

It's probably a matter of pennies and dimes either way, but it still intrigues me. I'm actually hoping that the non-ethanol blend proves better, basically because I think the ethanol industry as a whole is a big joke.

[BTC]

Ethanol contains less energy per volume in comparison to regular gasoline.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by RedThunderBird

I am afraid that the information you gave , is misleading --- the price for premium [ unleaded ] is more expensive , than the regular unleaded , as it is across the nation ------ unless the car you drive requires a higher octane , the cheapest gasoline is what you want , unless you want to expend money for nothing , and in the process damage the engine of your car , if you want to learn more about the subject you can go gas buddy or gas price.com ---- by the way you have better prices over all , than the lower states

I wasn't referring to premium fuel. We have three blends here, 10% ethanol (cheapest), regular unleaded, then premium.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by BTC

Ethanol contains less energy per volume in comparison to regular gasoline.

This is really apparent when you check out the mileage of E85 vehicles- absolutely horrible. No wonder studies have shown that ethanol is carbon-neutral at best.

[creditcardfree]

Good post. I'm in Iowa, too. I usually opt for the 10% ethanol. I don't think I realized the difference in efficiency.

My dad recently told me a story about my uncle who worked for the state of Nebraska. They drove vehicles equipped for E85 and had to plan where they would stop for fuel, not only because of the lack of filling stations, but because the vehicle got such low mileage on each tank of gas.

From what I understand, the ethanol blends are not even cheaper to produce. They sell it for less than regular unleaded because the government is subsidizing the some of the cost.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by creditcardfree

From what I understand, the ethanol blends are not even cheaper to produce. They sell it for less than regular unleaded because the government is subsidizing the some of the cost.

I knew the industry was helped A LOT by subsidies, but I didn't know that fact.

Our US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, was recently here in the state and mentioned the possibility of increasing the ethanol blend from 10%-15%, and also made a remark about encouraging (or maybe requiring?) automakers to make all vehicles E85 capable.

What a joke. As if we need to convert any more of our food supply into fuel that has essentially no cost or environmental benefits. This guy is supposedly a super-smart MIT scientist, so unless he knows something I don't, it's likely he's close with ethanol proponents.

[kork13]

Originally Posted by shultice24

What a joke. As if we need to convert any more of our food supply into fuel that has essentially no cost or environmental benefits. This guy is supposedly a super-smart MIT scientist, so unless he knows something I don't, it's likely he's close with ethanol proponents.

These are the main reasons I have issue with the recent trend moving in favor of ethanol -- Less efficient, costing the USG millions (billions?) in subsidies, no real environmental benefit, and all the while it consumes food resources, driving up food costs. Commercialized ethanol exists for purely political reasons.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by kork13

These are the main reasons I have issue with the recent trend moving in favor of ethanol -- Less efficient, costing the USG millions (billions?) in subsidies, no real environmental benefit, and all the while it consumes food resources, driving up food costs. Commercialized ethanol exists for purely political reasons.

Seems to be. When corn is $7-10 and everything at the grocery store is skyrocketing in price, hopefully it will become explicitly clear that ethanol is not the answer.

[GREENBACK]

I agree that ethanol is a joke. I work for the state of ohio and all our new vehicles are E85(not by choice). Could this be the beginning of nationalized gasoline? I support drilling more until we can develop better options which is going to take many years. More drilling isn't likely under the current administration but as we're seeing the present alternatives suck.

[shultice24]

Since present alternatives to fossil fuels are still a sidekick, and are only very slowly moving their way up to primetime, the best option in my mind is to embrace efficiency more than we do.

During the presidential race, I believe Obama stated that if all Americans would simply keep their tires inflated correctly, that would save as much energy as new offshore drilling would produce (and it would do so immediately, not a decade from now). He took some heat from the "drill-baby-drill" crowd, but he was absolutely right.

And that's only one little habit. If we seriously attacked the inefficiencies in our lives (what if we all drove the speed limit?), there would be absolutely no need for more drilling. The ultimate best source of energy is never creating it in the first place.

Obviously it will be a cold day in you-know-where when the majority of our nation actually accepts this, but we can each do our part.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by shultice24

Since present alternatives to fossil fuels are still a sidekick, and are only very slowly moving their way up to primetime, the best option in my mind is to embrace efficiency more than we do.

During the presidential race, I believe Obama stated that if all Americans would simply keep their tires inflated correctly, that would save as much energy as new offshore drilling would produce (and it would do so immediately, not a decade from now). He took some heat from the "drill-baby-drill" crowd, but he was absolutely right.

And that's only one little habit. If we seriously attacked the inefficiencies in our lives (what if we all drove the speed limit?), there would be absolutely no need for more drilling. The ultimate best source of energy is never creating it in the first place.

Obviously it will be a cold day in you-know-where when the majority of our nation actually accepts this, but we can each do our part.

We can try to do our part but most won't and it's my belief that we should drill. Whether in ANWR or offshore. I'm sick of opec holding us hostage. The envoronmental impact to ANWR will be minimal at most and we drill in the Gulf with out incident. I think we'll eventually end up doing it anyway especially if energy prices start skyrocketing. I, more than most, am concerned about the enviorment but this stuff can be done with very little impact on the enviorment.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I, more than most, am concerned about the enviorment but this stuff can be done with very little impact on the enviorment.

But can it be done without compromising any urgency to move away from fossil fuels? My concern is that, if we tap into more domestic supplies of fossil fuel, people take it for an actual solution instead of the very temporary band-aid that it really is.

In addition, I've heard it been said that even if we approved ANWR and/or new offshore drilling areas today, it would be at least 10 years from now before any of that oil comes online. It's not only a temporary band aid, but we don't even get it for quite some time.

I'm not suggesting that new drilling is necessarily wrong, but that it's almost completely irrelevant in the here and now. If anything, it's only a tiny, tiny fraction of the very long-term plan.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by RedThunderBird

I agree that ethanol is not the answer [ hydrogen should be ] , but for now is one of the solutions , and that is fine by me .

I disagree with the last part. If it's carbon-neutral at best, takes from the food supply, and is only kept alive by subsidies, it never was a solution in the first place. It's stealing resources away from actual solutions.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by shultice24

But can it be done without compromising any urgency to move away from fossil fuels?

If we make it a priority to move away from fossil fuels then I believe it's possible to take what we have here while searching for alternatives. I don't know the timetable to get oil from ANWR or offshore sites but it's likely far less than the other plans which seem to be mostly theory at the moment; especially, in terms of their actual worthiness.

My other concern with new technologies is who is gonna pay for it. The oil companies are already set up to drill for oil. They are willing to spend billions to explore for new reserves and they largely have the resources in place to do it. I'm not very sure that the other alternatives can be put into place very quick without, yet again burdening the tax payer. Keep in mind that this will all come on the heels of a possible second stimulus plan, Cap and trade, and the new healthcare plan and God knows what else they'll dream up.

It kind of seems like our leaders have no foresight or don't really care beyond the next election.

[shultice24]

Tough issues for sure, Greenback. I can certainly understand your argument for domestic drilling. What really irked me was last year when ANWR and offshore drilling completely dominated GOP's energy discussions, as if it was the magic bullet.

How bout this solution? We go back in time 10-15 years and implement a plan that gradually increases gas taxes. By the time we get back to 2009 gas will be $4+ a gallon, but it won't be a big deal because we will be many times less dependent upon oil than we are now. The market will have had ample time to respond to steadily rising fossil fuel costs, and will have adjusted accordingly. I bet we'd already be driving plug-in cars.

I don't know what's more unrealistic though; going back in time or getting our politicians to support a bill that's not pro-big oil.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

It kind of seems like our leaders have no foresight or don't really care beyond the next election.

Sigh... Amen to that one. It's unfortunate that in our top-down bureaucracy, those at the top are rewarded for short-term, ad-hoc thinking and aren't affected by or accountable for the long-term results of their actions.

[burleson]

Originally Posted by RedThunderBird

I know that , I just wanted to make sure the other posters would also know this === sometimes words can be misleading , even when is not intentional , but correct me if I am wrong === In the U.S we don't use leaded gas at all === so the term unleaded used by gas stations to differentiate one price from another is wrong =========== which brings me to the point , that the lowest price on gasoline should be the one the one you want to save money , unless the vehicle requires a higher octane , which it would tell you right in the gas cap ....... otherwise you are doing more harm , than good to your car , and wallet ==== consumers should be aware of this , and unfortunately they are not ==== go for the lowest priced gasoline , you don't need to spend more or even harm your car , regardless of the commercials on TV .

I'm sorry, you have no clue what you are talking about. It is called simple math. Here are the figures from my own two vehicles my wife and I use to commute to work everyday. I have a large sample size and these are accurate.

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 100 100
Miles Per Gallon 33 37
Gallons Per Day 3.03 2.70
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $7.73 $7.16
Cost Per Month $167.45 $155.20
Cost Per Year $2,009.09 $1,862.16

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 50 50
Miles Per Gallon 15 17
Gallons Per Day 3.33 2.94
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $8.50 $7.79
Cost Per Month $184.20 $168.90
Cost Per Year $2,210.00 $2,026.47

I save $330.51 a year using NON ETHANOL. It is less efficient for my vehicles and the price discount is not greater than the loss of efficiency. The higher gas prices go, the more I save. At $4.00 gas, I save $601.90 a year. Not gigantic numbers, but I'll take it. Enough with the "it doesn't matter what gas you put in - the cheapest is the best option" nonsense. I go with facts.