I understand that from an energy efficiency standpoint ethanol is worse than petroleum partly due to the way it is currently produced, which involves burning petroleum products. However it doesn't have to be produced using as much petroleum as currently it is. It burns much cleaner than any petroleum product and about the same as natural gas and propane. I was talking about it from a political standpoint. In regard to GAFIT's remark about the amount of diesel fuel used for farm equipment and transportation – it doesn't have to be that way. The farm equipment and the tanker trucks can be run on ethanol. Diesel and gasoline are also carried from place of production to place of retail sale, by diesel fuel. So the fact that ethanol might currently be transported by diesel fuel is not really relevant.

However there is a really big problem with growing carbohydrate crops for ethanol production. The problem is that the way we usually grow these crops is by dumping huge amounts of haber-process nitrogen compounds into the soil. And guess where all those haber-process nitrogen compounds comes from? The primary nitrogen compound is ammonia, NHsub3. The N portion of NHsub3 comes from aerial nitrogen, but the 3 H molecules come from, you guessed it, fossil fuels, natural gas (mostly CHsub4) or petroleum. http://animalvegetablemineral.info/nitrogen.shtml. I understand the idea qualitatively but I haven't yet done the math to understand it quantitatively. To do ethanol sensibly, we have to put nitrogen into the soil using biological processes instead of using nitrogen compounds made from fossil fuels. . We must utilize the organisms involved in the nitrogen cycle. Also, I mentioned previously how we must minimize nitrogen run-off. If we can get this right we can benefit from ethanol. Growing crops the way we do now, I agree that scientifically it doesn't make sense.

It will take some effort but I think carbohydrate crops can be produced sustainable, with little or no resort to burning fossil fuels. We already have most of the agricultural science knowledge. It is just a matter of agricultural engineering. At present we cannot get as high a yield per acre of carbohydrate crops by taking advantage of biologically produced nitrogen compounds, But it is not necessary to have as high a yield. We can do about 3/4 as well. And after all, what exactly are fossil fuels? They are for the most part, the fossilized remains of plants. We are gathering them. Agriculture has always been a more efficient way of getting the plants we want, than gathering them – not just food plants, but plants for other uses including building materials, and for materials such as latex. I think we ought to be able to grow our fuel more efficiently than gathering it if we make an effort to do so.

 

The fact that it's transported by diesel is, most definitely, a very important aspect. There are ZERO semi's that run on ethanol on the road and farmer's tractors all burn diesel.

You are talking theory and I'm talking actual/factual impact on the economy and environment. Ethanol is not good for either and hasn't been for the 20+ years that we have been subsidizing it's production. It would take generations to undue the extra pollution and cost already done.

Edited to add...the fact that gasoline and diesel are also transported by diesel is true, but they both have a much higher energy content. Transporting ethanol is less effective because it has the same weight and volume, but produces less energy. Also, we don't have farmers running diesel tractors to "grow" gasoline or diesel.

My point is that there is nothing good about ethanol as it's currently being used and produced. It's just all for a net loss.

 

BTW, I like the idea of alternate fuel sources. I would like to see Honda's hydrogen program expanded. It seems to have the least disadvantages if it were more common in use.

 

A lot of things can be done, but unless the right people stand to make millions, nothing will change.

 

87 octane, with 10% ethanol from Cumberland Farms (Gulf).

 

I think I’m going to start only using ethanol-free(non-ethanol) gas after I walnut blast my intake valves, as apparently ethanol is not good for Direct Injection engines (DI engines). Check out this Consumer Reports article from 2015:

”Some carmakers, including BMW and Kia, have issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) to their dealers recommending that drivers use only name-brand detergent gasoline—without ethanol additives”

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ines/index.htm

Good thread on dirty intake valve issues - https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/3rd-...-issues-4.html

 

93 from BP. Gonna have to look into this "ethanol free gas is better for DI engines" thing.

 

And Top Tier. Ethanol-free ("Pure Gas") can be used once a month, from what "experts" have said. https://www.pure-gas.org/

 

Before I got this Fit this week, I only fueled up twice a month anyhow. Thanks for the link.

 

Very interesting stuff. I see that there is a Chevron near me that has 100 Octane racing fuel.
Any opinions if it is safe to put that in my 2015 FIT?
What would be the benefits?
Thanks.

 

More profit for Chevron.

Higher octane lets the engine have a higher compression ratio without pinging. In order to do that, it is slightly less volatile. Modern cars adjust the timing to the octane of the fuel, so you're not going to see any improvements.

https://www.cars.com/articles/if-my-...1420684149356/
https://www.truecar.com/blog/premium-vs-regular-gas/

 

I agree with you in the case of 100 octane, but your statement that "Modern cars adjust the timing to the octane of the fuel..." is true, but is the reason that you DO see an improvement with higher octane fuel.

Modern ECU's have the ability to advance and retard timing within the limits of the programming. With practically every modern engine now having 10:1 or more compression ratio or a form of forced induction, the engines are definitely into the territory where they make more power with premium fuel. The automakers fully know this and the programs are written to advance timing in order to take advantage of higher octane fuels. They are also written to lower timing for lower octane fuels. Lower timing equals less power. Higher timing (up to a point) results in more power.

If an automaker says the vehicle can run on 87 octane, that doesn't mean it will perform best with that octane. It only means that the programming can accommodate it.

That all being said, I fully agree that there is zero reason to run 100 octane fuel in a stock Fit of any generation. They don't have enough compression to ever take advantage of that much octane.

I would even realistically guess that the power difference between 87 and 93 octane in a Fit is somewhere between 3 and 10 whp depending on generation and age/condition of the motor. That is not a power difference you can feel.

For me, I'm willing to pay the extra $ for the small bump in power but I completely understand that it would not be worth it to most people.

As for pure fuel vs E10, I see no reason to spend more than 5% or so more for pure fuel over E10. They make identical power. The only difference is that it takes more E10 to make the equivalent amount of power as pure gasoline. E10 results in worse fuel economy, but no change in performance. Expect about a 5% drop in fuel economy which is where I came up with the price difference I'd be willing to pay.

On the subject of the ability to clean the backside of the valves or any other part of the motor, pure gas is a step in the wrong direction. Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline. I'm not an ethanol supporter at all. Just saying don't buy pure gas as a way to better clean your valves. For that, you need more detergents and cleaning agents in the fuel. Not more octane or less ethanol.

 

But you have to balance the increased cost with the increased MPG. I have never been able to document an increase in MPG. My MPG varies with each tankful of regular, so someone would have to use the expensive stuff for many miles to do a fair comparison.. Also, ot all stations carry high octane.

 

You are looking at if from a different angle. As I said, the extra money is worth it to me for the power. You don't "have to balance the cost" if you aren't concerned about the cost. Has nothing to do with return based on fuel economy. I seriously doubt that the cost could be recouped on a Fit or any other low powered vehicle.

I can completely understand not running premium fuel in a Fit. What I always find funny though are people wanting to run low octane fuel in vehicles that they paid extra for to get a high power vehicle.

In preliminary testing, it looks like our Accord 2.0 really, really prefers premium fuel. First tank on the 87 octane dealer fill it was registering 22.5 mpg on the display. A switch to premium and it's now reading 28.8 mpg with the same driving. A large part of that could be break in vs having more miles on it though. Regardless, it will only get premium from here on as turbo's like octane

 

Unlike when I was younger, I don't care about power. I drive to get max MPG.

 

@SilverEX:

I am trying to figure out how your Fuelly avg is into the 40's and mine is 10 MPG! less (32)?

Do you leave the house and just get on the highway set the cruise at 55 and use the ECO mode all the time with no A/C usage on flat lands?

The only way I have ever averaged over 40 MPG on my 2015 FIT was on long road trips, between fill-ups on highway use only, no AC usage, no hill climbs.

 

If my main concern was fuel mileage, I'd just get an electric vehicle or just drive less. Seeing as how I'm 48, I doubt my mentality will change unless it's forced to. Heck, my grandfather had a 280hp Lincoln when he died and he drove it like he stole it till the end. (End was due to cancer and not his driving habits. LOL)

Plus, you would hate it if you lived where I am. Nothing but curves and elevation changes here in the mountains. It's the main reason we moved here, but would kill someone trying to eek out fuel mileage or be easy on tires.

As you can tell by the fact we have a Fit and love it, it's not necessarily about having the most powerful car on the road though. It's about my particular vehicle running the absolute best it can. Good fuel, good plugs, good filters, and high end lubricants all for the purpose of having it run as best as it can. Believe it or not, it still averages 32ish mpg each tank and that's with considerable amounts of WOT and high rpm driving. I wouldn't trade 10, 20, or even 30 more mpg to drive slow in a straight line.

Nothing at all wrong with being frugal though. I'm that way about things outside of my hobbies.

 

I just looked up where SilverEX lives. Looks like an absolutely beautiful place! I would not count on being able to match his fuel mileage anywhere near LA!

Biggest key to fuel mileage is maintaining a steady speed, with light throttle, in the highest gear (when reaches max gearing with CVT). Doable in small rural areas, but not so much in cities or interstate driving where other factors influence speed.

 

I can drive for miles without stopping. When I go into town, it's all lights and stop signs. When I come to a down-hill, I take my foot off the gas. Always on ECO. I've never found the A/C to make a difference, and I'm not going to suffer just get a couple more MPG.

I think it's interesting that my son's 2020 is getting such good mileage. He goes to work in town every day and doesn't drive with MPG in mind. I'm sure I'd do much better if I were driving his car.

Living in the Catskill mountains, there are lots of uphill stretches. Going into town - about 17 miles - I can easily average 50 MPG, even with red lights. Coming home, it's more like 42 MPG - mostly uphill.

There is a significant drop when the weather turns colder.

 

I used to live in Binghamton and spent a lot of time in the Catskills for many years. It's a first class place to be--just cold in winter.

But this is incredible--the MPG's you are getting. Maybe something is wrong with my car? or it's my tires? I put on Michelin Pilots which are a great tire but they are heavy and I know I am losing about 2 MPG in city, but not 10 MPG.

What tires are you running in summer? Are you still running the OEM Firestones FR 740's on your FIT?