MPG's

[DrWebster]

OK, so I just got back from putting about 800 miles on the car, and have some interesting observations.

Drove from Minneapolis to Lincoln, NE, going through Des Moines. The tank of gas from Minneapolis to Des Moines, 87 octane from Costco (unknown ethanol content), only got me about 35mpg. Steady driving using cruise control, 65mph the whole way. Filled up in Des Moines, again at Costco, but with 89 octane E10 (the cheapest they had). From there to Lincoln, again at 65mph with cruise, about 35.5mpg.

On the way back, filled up at a Shell station in Lincoln with 87 octane no ethanol gas (which was actually about $.30/gallon more expensive than 89 octane E10). Managed 37mpg from Lincoln back to the Costco in Des Moines, but this time I pinned the cruise control to 70mph (the speed limit). On a whim I decided to fill the tank with 91 octane no ethanol, and again set the cruise to 70 for the leg back to Minneapolis. If the fuel computer in the car is any bit correct, I should be looking at about 38mpg for that tank (haven't filled it back up yet).

So, it seems that not only are our cars (understandably) less efficient when running E10, but they don't seem to lose any efficiency when running higher octane fuel. I may try running a few tanks of 91 octane during my normal weekly commute and compare to what I've been getting so far, but I have a gut feeling that ElZoom may be on to something.

On a side note -- I suspect I may be one of the first in the US to do this to their 2 for a trip (it actually worked remarkably well):

 

[dsgrey]

Actually, all cars take a hit on E10 and look up the flex fuel vehicle's mpgs for E85. Big difference! I did want to confirm one observation. At 5am one sleepy morning last week I stopped at my cheap gas station ($3.26 for 87 octane) but pushed the 93octane button ($3.56). Of course I did not realize this until later that day. My mpgs on the 93 octane tank were the same as if I'd run 87 octane.

I also own an older Miata which "requires" super unleaded. 87 or 93 octane gets the same mpgs. It's kept tuned so no issues (ping) running either grade. I've never observed any of my cars getting better mpgs on a higher octane. Some cars require it due to the compression ratio.

 

[Spindog]

I've been researching Ethanol and it's destructive properties. It cannot be sent through traditional pipelines along with regular gasoline because it picks up moisture. It also absorbs moisture from everywhere it can. Everyone knows that water in your fuel system is bad news. Ethanol also destroys rubber seals and plastics in general. It kills your fuel efficiency 3-5% and it's part of the reason why gasoline costs as much as it does. Thanks to the EPA , we pay more to get less miles per gallon , and ultimately , destroy our engines slowly. It also causes 'bucking' and I remember my Focus used to do that shortly before it died. After some looking around for a preventative solution , I purchased a 32 oz. bottle of Mix-I-Go for $20 and I'm waiting for it to arrive. One bottle treats 320 gallons of gas. The directions say add 1 oz for every 10 gallons of gas. The M2 holds 11 gallons I'll post results as soon as I can.

 

[Richard_rsp]

I've been researching Ethanol and it's destructive properties. It cannot be sent through traditional pipelines along with regular gasoline because it picks up moisture. It also absorbs moisture from everywhere it can. Everyone knows that water in your fuel system is bad news. Ethanol also destroys rubber seals and plastics in general. Thanks to the EPA , we pay more to get less miles per gallon , and ultimately , destroy our engines slowly..

No offense, but It appears you are reading one sided view on Ethanol. While ethanol is caustic and hydrophillic, unless your car is built before 1985, then you should be fine. In the 80s, carmakers started lining rubber lines and gaskets with teflon to keep it from eating away at the rubber. There are many advantages and disadvantages to ethanol.

Remember there are 2 very wealthy industries that are pushing "facts" about ethanol; Oil and Corn. So take everything you read with a grain of salt.

 

[larson701]

I monitor this thread since I will be replacing my Protege5 in the next couple of years. Regarding ethanol, there are more myths than facts regarding its effects on engines and fuel economy. Personally, I have no problem with ethanol in fuel. I have been running it in cars and lawn and garden equipment since the 80s and have never had a problem. I believe that using E10 or the other blends will reduce fuel economy, but just in proportion to the amount and heat content of the ethanol. E10 will give a 3% hit, E30 about 10% and E85 about 30%. It takes several tank fulls to come to a valid conclusion regarding the reduced fuel economy due to the many variables involved in driving. Currently, I am running E30 with no issues. I have lost about 10% on fuel economy but the fuel trims remain at about zero.

Keep those fuel economy reports coming. Thanks!

 

[Spindog]

Filled up yesterday. Put 9.5 gallons in after using Mix-I-Go for the first time. Doubled the dosage as per instructions , 2 oz. Drove 33 miles until the first block disappeared. Never pushed it past 70 MPH. I've also been switching the traction control off when I drive. Any thoughts on the traction control? I read that it causes misfiring of the cylinders , intentionally of course , but I'm curious as to it's effects on mileage.

 

[Spindog]

No offense, but It appears you are reading one sided view on Ethanol. While ethanol is caustic and hydrophillic, unless your car is built before 1985, then you should be fine. In the 80s, carmakers started lining rubber lines and gaskets with teflon to keep it from eating away at the rubber. There are many advantages and disadvantages to ethanol.

Remember there are 2 very wealthy industries that are pushing "facts" about ethanol; Oil and Corn. So take everything you read with a grain of salt.

Ethanol is 1 of 2 factors that affect the price of gasoline. The U.S. government is the other factor through taxation for basically doing nothing. They don't drill , they don't refine , they don't supply it. It's an absolutely hideous display of highway robbery. If the oil companies just 'checked out' in retaliation of government , this country would screech to a halt.
I believe the reason my 2003 Focus lost 4 quarts of oil in 3000 miles is because of Ethanol.
One of the testimonials about MIX-I-GO was shocking. They put it in a 1996 Camaro that got 25 MPG , drove 300 miles , with 3 people and some racing equipment/tools in the car , cranked up the AC and they got 35 MPG.

 

[MacAttack7]

Got a new record yesterday of 45.19. That was pretty much all highway for 260 miles. I was forced to drive about 60 or under the entire time, because the people where I live are all on sedatives or something. I've never lived anywhere else where people drive so slow. I've been shifting into 5th as soon as possible lately & I coast a lot, but I don't really do anything special besides those 2 things. My overall average is 38.7 now.

 

[Mr.Lahey]

22-26 city because I drive like a dick but around 38-42 with me and one other person in the car on the freeway. Going on a 600 mile road trip this Thursday freeway all the way there so I'll post back next week on what i got.

 

[Frankrx]

Just returned yesterday from round trip from Corpus Christi to Alamogordo, 1650 miles. Never got more then 32.4 mpg. Didn't matter if I was going east or west, 70 or 85. 32.5 or less has been my average for all 7500 miles since May. I'm really drooling over ya'alls mileage. Guess I'll be shutting off the traction control and topping up with 93 octane from now on and see if that helps. Already using the Mobile 1 Extended.

 

[MacAttack7]

Just returned yesterday from round trip from Corpus Christi to Alamogordo, 1650 miles. Never got more then 32.4 mpg. Didn't matter if I was going east or west, 70 or 85. 32.5 or less has been my average for all 7500 miles since May. I'm really drooling over ya'alls mileage. Guess I'll be shutting off the traction control and topping up with 93 octane from now on and see if that helps. Already using the Mobile 1 Extended.

You have a stick shift don't you? If you're trying to get good mpg's & only getting 32.5 or less that would be strange. If I drive around not thinking about gas at all & just have fun I still get about 36.

If driving normal I shift about 3000 to 4000 rpm & use regular gas. My tires are pumped up pretty high around 40 or so. I don't do anything special though except cruise quite a bit with my foot off the gas. When coming to a light I see it way ahead of time & try to time it so I never have to stop. It's kind of like a game. When going downhill I take my foot off the gas. When coming home from work I can cruise a few miles with my foot off the gas because it's downhill. I still say at the speed limit though, so I'm not driving like some slow poke or anything like that. I think if your foot is off the gas the fuel injectors shut off, so mpg's are infinite or really high anyway.

If I'm really trying to get good mpg's then I still drive the same, but I'll shift before 3000 rpm & I'll be in 5th gear probably before 30 mph. (unless going uphill).

You should be above 35 mpg easy without even trying with the manual trans unless my car has a oddball engine with only 75 horsepower instead of 100 or whatever it's supposed to have. Sure feels that way sometimes when I want to gun it to pass someone going uphill.

 

[MazdaTwo]

Never got more then 32.4 mpg. Didn't matter if I was going east or west, 70 or 85. 32.5 or less has been my average for all 7500 miles since May. I'm really drooling over ya'alls mileage. Guess I'll be shutting off the traction control and topping up with 93 octane from now on and see if that helps. Already using the Mobile 1 Extended.

So for the people running Mobile 1 Extended... are you guys running 5W-20 instead of 0W-20?

You should be above 35 mpg easy without even trying with the manual trans unless my car has a oddball engine with only 75 horsepower instead of 100 or whatever it's supposed to have. Sure feels that way sometimes when I want to gun it to pass someone going uphill.

Here's one huge factor that needs to be considered, MacAttack7. Geography is likely playing a huge roll in Frankrx's MPG problem. You're about as northwest as you can get in the US, which typically means milder temperatures. Frankrx is in South Texas. He's probably running the AC nonstop in his neck of the woods. On a car with such a low torque output, the AC is really sucking a ton of HP out of the motor. I can see and feel a huge difference in MPG and power when I drive during a hot week here in MD as opposed to a mild week. There is a ton of extra labor on the motor with the AC on.

I also think that everyone in this thread needs to take what EL Zoom says about his MPG experience with a grain of salt. After a lot of thought, his test is extremely flawed. Since most of his "50+ mpg" experiences comes after a fill-up, short out-and-back, refill and calculate, he is not able to factor in the pump cutoff at different gas stations and under different conditions. Unless you go to ONE gas station, to the SAME EXACT pump, and then hang it up as soon as it clicks off, you've got an extremely uncontrolled variable. If he's topping off... there's no way to get an accurate calculation, and would certainly explain the extra MPG.

 

[MacAttack7]

Yes, the air conditioner probably changes everything. I rarely use mine, and I don't really enjoy driving the car when it's on.......................screws up the shifting & makes the tiny horsepower even tinier. It would be interesting to run a full tank with the air on constantly to compare with a full tank with no air. Somebody else do it though, not me.

 

[MazdaTwo]

Somebody else do it though, not me.

Haha. I feel the same way.

 

[samsavell]

Hm.. Thanks to an entire month over 100 degrees in Houston i've been driving with the A/C on 2 to Max the entire time. Haha, I never once thought about the effect of the A/C on the engine.

 

[dsgrey]

Mac's numbers sound reasonable on the stick. My last two tanks have been 41-42mpg and I was doing around 65mph w/AC. Playing around I see a 2-3mpg bump if your speed varies 5mph at that range.

It's not a low rpm engine so 75mph could drop it down to 36mpg and watching my scangauge I could see getting 50mpg+ at 50mph. Though you'd be shot for driving so slow. A sixth gear that could cruise at 75mph with around 2500rpms would be nice.

 

[Frankrx]

Just got back from the Mazda service dept, had a couple of issues besides the mileage. On the drive in, about 50 miles, I did get about 35.5 by turning off the Traction Control, vs the normal 32.4. So that does work for me. Also, had been experiencing what service manager called "fish bite" when driving at a constant speed. He asked what gas I was using and when I told him, explained it was not a "top tier" gas and didn't have cleaners/detergents in any grade. Gave me a web site "www.toptiergas.com to find out what companies do have the detergents added. He said these engines are prone to carbonizing the valves without the detergents, and he said he had seen stuck/bent valves from this buildup. On the tire pressure, he said most owners in south Texas are setting it at 35 psi due to the heat here.

On the way back, mpg stayed at 35.7 with no other changes. Just topped off with one of the cleaner gas, but haven't had a chance to check since then. Sounds like everyone on here is getting it right, and thanks for all the insight. Just wish I had read this thread before my trip. Would have saved me a bit. Next month off on another 1500 mile trip up north. We'll see if it gets better. Sure would be nice to get more than 285 miles between fill ups.

 

[ElZoom]

So for the people running Mobile 1 Extended... are you guys running 5W-20 instead of 0W-20?



Here's one huge factor that needs to be considered, MacAttack7. Geography is likely playing a huge roll in Frankrx's MPG problem. You're about as northwest as you can get in the US, which typically means milder temperatures. Frankrx is in South Texas. He's probably running the AC nonstop in his neck of the woods. On a car with such a low torque output, the AC is really sucking a ton of HP out of the motor. I can see and feel a huge difference in MPG and power when I drive during a hot week here in MD as opposed to a mild week. There is a ton of extra labor on the motor with the AC on.

I also think that everyone in this thread needs to take what EL Zoom says about his MPG experience with a grain of salt. After a lot of thought, his test is extremely flawed. Since most of his "50+ mpg" experiences comes after a fill-up, short out-and-back, refill and calculate, he is not able to factor in the pump cutoff at different gas stations and under different conditions. Unless you go to ONE gas station, to the SAME EXACT pump, and then hang it up as soon as it clicks off, you've got an extremely uncontrolled variable. If he's topping off... there's no way to get an accurate calculation, and would certainly explain the extra MPG.

....Well now, I use the same gas station but whatever pump is open and its fill to the click each time......I will be doing a more controlled test asap....Im also not adverse getting a few of us together and run the same route and see the results...

 

[DrWebster]

...I did get about 35.5 by turning off the Traction Control...

What's the thinking behind turning off the TC to increase fuel economy?

 

[Mazdamatic]

i feel so left out with my AT.

dohoho