Is ethanol killing your hybrid's fuel economy?
The fuel economy killerIt is a well known fact that ethanol reduces the fuel economy of internal combustion engines. Still, when you travel through some states, gas can be a good bit cheaper if you buy unleaded gas with higher percentages of ethanol that still qualify as conventional unleaded (We're not talking E80, for example, which requires Flex fuel technology).
These higher ethanol mixes have caused big reductions in the fuel economy of hybrid cars according to some owners with whom I have had contact. One owner told me that when he stopped using ethanol blends, the fuel economy of his Toyota Prius increased from an average of 43 mpg to 50 mpg.
Any similar experiences out there?
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
6:29 AM
6 Comments:
I drive a 2008 Chevy Uplander van for my job with the State and when I use E85, I notice a 5 to 7 mile per gallon decrease. That is a lot, in my estimation. Instead of getting 25 mpg average I will get about 18...So the cost savings is completely negated. However, there is still the good feeling that the E85 mostly comes from domestic sources.
Ethanol supporters talk about how many gallons of foreign oil ethanol reduces. But, when decreased efficiency is added into the equation, I bet its far less than stated.
Jabroni almost hit on all that really matters - It is not mpg that matters, rather it is only cost per mile that matters. Those costs include the direct cost of the fuel, costs of wars and foreign policies that prop up the oil-based economy, and costs incurred due to damaging the global environment. A huge benefit of ethanol is that almost all of it is produced here in the US for US consumption. So when you look at it this way, you automatically have to factor in much more than just one number (mpg), that by itself does not really represent anything meaningful.
but if you get less mpg, then its not a barrel per barrel reduction. also, ethanol is not very environmentally friendly when you add in the lack of pipelines to distribute, and the massive damage corn growing causes to the environment.
i'm interested in cellulosic ethanol, but i'm no fan of corn-based ethanol.
and, just for fun, let's add in all the flex fuel tax credits the big 3 receive for vehicles that never fill with ethanol. if automakers simply met their cafe rquirements, without the flex-fuel credit, how many billions of gallons would be saved per year?
Dahc - That's another way of making the point, barrel for barrel is not really a meaning full way of quantifying and compareing what really maters - costs.
I agree with you that corn has its problems. But corn is really a stop-gap measure with regards to greater adoption of bio-fuels, and it does represent the first real move away from a single-fuel market. I'm all for cellulosic, molasses, and suguar-based ethanol production. And for that matter, wind, solar, and nuclear.
I also agree with you that the flex-fuel credits going to the automakers does nothing to really help. Credits that directly reward consumers are the way to go if our government really wants to move away from an oil-based economy. And it is interesting that both political parties now state that energy independence is a priority. So it will be interesting to see if they either are serious about it, by doing what has to be done if they are serious - move us away from an oil based economy.
"So it will be interesting to see if they either are serious about it, by doing what has to be done if they are serious - move us away from an oil based economy."
Very interesting indeed.
Since there could be a massive amount of pork involved, it will be interesting to see how Congress manages this 'revolution' - probably even more interesting than any Presidential action.
We could be on the bridge to a new energy paradigm, or the most expensive bridge to nowhere quite easily I, unfortunately, feel.
Post a Comment
<< Home