Yeah, after the input on here, talking with Vince, and then checking it myself I believe that now. Okay, I'll be going old school on this then.

 

Went out on a cruise tonight to confirm for y'all.

Topped off my tank on E85.


Took note of the Odometer as a backup for the trip odometers.


Reset the trip odometers.




Reset the Avg MPG.


Cruised around 21 miles and change. Stopped for a drink, turned around, and then went back the other way on the same road to the original gas station. By going both directions, it helps eliminate error due to wind and elevation, since every time you down one direction you're going up the other direction and vice-versa.

This was my odometer reading when I got back to the original gas station.


...and these were my trip odometers, backing up the main odometer.




This is just for reference.


...and guess what? DIC states 41.0 MPG if I was on 93 octane.


...and this was when I got off the highway, before getting to the gas station.


Soo... how much E85 did the car take?


...and more proof...


...and even more proof to back up the pics of the DIC in case somebody tries to squeal photoshop or some stupid trash like that.

Fuel Mileage Test - YouTube


So the part you all have been waiting for... Let's crunch the numbers:

I went a round trip of 43.1miles tonight. The car took 1.231 gallons of E85. That comes out to 35.01mpg on E85.

Just for curiousity sake, let's see what the E85-to-93 ratio was for the DIC reading...
35.01/41.0 = .854, so once again, the DIC seems to be in the mid 80s percent range for what it says for 93 versus real-life E85 mileage.


So, now that this has been proven once again that it's not some fluke or figment of somebody's imagination...

I don't make this stuff up. I'm a pretty easy-going guy, but I don't appreciate people disrespecting me, alluding that I'm lying about this. It's fine if you disagree, that's life, but to full-on say I'm lying is something completely different. It would be really nice of a certain few of y'all in particular to man up about it and apologize. I admitted I was wrong about a few things earlier too.

On that note, sure, it's easy to see that people would be surprised. Heck, I was too. That's why I freakin' posted up about it to begin with.

 

Neat. I still can't believe it tho. Will it maintain this mileage throughout the entire tank? Why do you think you're getting such good mileage vs the rest of us? Very interesting.

 

Do you drive like a grandma maybe???

 

Lol I think this is hilarious. Because your pulling a straight e85 and managing 30+. I highly highly doubt this. You showed us miles and ect. Well I mean we all have down hills and can manage a **** ton of miles... Drive ure car in a straight line for 30 miles at 65-70 mph and this is the real test. No down hills .... And give us a video for proof.. not pictures. That would be like me showing showing my car drive 200 miles with a quarter tank of gas and not moving the needle.

It's not possible.. unless your having your car run at a afr of 18.0 lol.. which would not really run would it? ..

My car is capable of 35mpg with 93 and that is just cruising. And this is also with my cam timing bumped up pretty damn good in my cruising sections... So since ethanol uses so much more fuel to burn at stoich . I call b.s

 

People that know me know that usually isn't the case.

I basically just cruised and kept a constant speed. I didn't run anybody lol, didn't goose it going up hills, stayed away from 18 wheeler turbulence, and in general just kept a cruise going. The speed was usually 55-65mph depending on hills, passing speed traps, traffic flow, and such.

I turned around and came back, so if it was downhill I would then be going uphill. I also went further than 30 miles.

 

Craziness I say, craziness!

 

Your not getting 30+ miles..... On full e85 ..... Even on a e blend its not possible... Only way is well what i already said.. if your commanding a lower fuel pressure at cruise sections and idle. Then your injectors are working way harder to keep the correct amount of fuel. So i still don't see that. Cam phasing also, if I were to make my cam timing way up there I still wouldn't get much higher in mpg...... I mean I cantake pics of a receipt, and drive the car down a hill . Take another pic and then do a idle shot ... It's unrealistic and is false....

 

That's awesome, I can't get that driving like a old man on the highway....

So it would seem your correction factor is proving itself to be correct. Also good to know...

I don't think anyone said you were imagining things, we thought the MPG computer was imagining things.

If anyone said you were lying, that was always out of line. I don't remember anyone saying you were the liar, but I am not re-reading the thread to confirm that either so.... I think everyone from the start believed your car was wrong, not you.

I can assure you in regards to what I thought, well, I thought your car was the liar, I never meant to allude to the fact that you were bullshitting us at all if it did actually come out that way.

Surprised is an understatement, I'm shocked you pulled 35mpg out of E blend.

 

I don't know how you can say that when he is using the miles driven divided by how much gas he is putting in the car????

I guess I need to recant on what I said in my other post, I guess some people are actually calling you a bullshitter... Which I will say again is 100% out of line.

 

Seriously, other than EPA tests, who has 30 miles of level ground to drive on? I live in Oklahoma and I can't even do that.

There's a few facts here that you are choosing to think of as opinions. First being the amount of gas and miles he drove for this experiment. Those are facts. How he drove, his AFR, etc, those we can make assumptions on based on what he described. He told us about how his drive was, and we know his car is running and didn't blow itself up so I think it's safe to assume he wasn't pushing 18 afr.

If it turns out that he was bullshitting us, well then I will have egg on my face. But I would rather have egg on my face than call someone a liar with no proof of my own....

 

Here's your requested video, sir. It has an uphill and downhill portion, as well as scrolling through the DIC, for your viewing pleasure.

Fuel Mileage Test - Cruising - YouTube

 

Not bullshitting...... I myself can drive my own car and manage a 35+ with gasoline. If I am babying it down hills and doing 40mph...... I can also take pictures of my cluster , and I can also take a picture of a gas tank with a receipt in my hand saying i got this much when in fact I didn't fill it all the way. I can also say I did one thing and give pictures and say I did it. But its not possible in daily driving and nor is is a factor......

. MPG. FFVs operating on E85 usually experience a 25–30% drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol’s lower energy content. So therefore.. either.your lying about this, or your telling half the story......

 

I really don't know what else to say or what else I can provide. I've provided everything I can think of. At the end of the day, if it doesn't convince you then that'll have to be fine. I tried to document everything I could. Once again, the only thing I can think of is it's got something to do with the ported head, cams, lightweight flywheel, vortex generators on the back... heck I don't know.

I can rule out tires though. Tonight's cruise was on a fresh set of RE970s and a fresh alignment.

 

Another thing. The dic is in fact never correct. I can skew them up badly if I wanted.. I can also Skew up readings for mph and ect.. so.... And anyways Ure dic shows less of 33-34, take into factor its still moving, also take into factor the dic is never correct, also take a note on this ( maf correction/ maf calibration) can Skew the dic....

Do you understand the basis of ethanol and why in fact its hard to get good gas mileage? It takes more because the low energy content..... Your mpg I can see with gas. And that's it. You gots want to call me a bullshitter, but yet it seems to me that I'm the only one that sees the bigger picture..





Taking pics, showing a Vid of 1-2 mins with the dic dropping mpg, doesn't mean anything..... Because you could have filled it with gas and and moved to a epump and put it into somthing else.

If you were getting 35+mpg I feel sorry for Ure engine because its not getting the correct amount of fuel.....

 

 

Yes, I understand the chemistry behind the energy stored in E85 vs gasoline, and therefore the mileage vs gasoline. I don't even have a gas tune for this build yet, you can ask Vince.

This sounds like grasping at straws at this point with these theories, like how I'm going to risk damaging my brand new engine running gasoline on an E85 tune, ask Vince to skew my speedometer, etc... and for what? To post something up that was thought-invoking? I thought it was an interesting and noteworthy finding. So you find it hard to believe. Okay. That's fine then. Really. No sarcasm intended. I believe what you're saying about your mileage. That's actually better than what I got on my old engine.

I found it hard to believe at first too, but the fact remains - it happened. lol The problem I guess is that nobody can believe it in an age of multiple ways to tune a car, photoshop, internet trolls, and liars. I could even have somebody video me doing this and driving alongside, and people still would find some reason to say it's fake or something.

 

I'm calling bull on you too, and besides your showing your instant mpg in your video, I can get the same mpg in my lifted Silverado that constantly gets only 12 mpg, but if I turn my dic to instant and drive down a mountain I can get my dic to say sixty mpg, if you really want ill do that tomorrow for you,

 

I know what you're saying. The pics and the video both show the average in addition to the instant though if you'd like to check it out.

 

Ah I watched the video twice and it never switched off instant, unless you did it when you were showing the road,

 

Yeah, I did it towards the end. I scrolled through the whole DIC menu, including the mileage I was at at the time. Check it out starting at like 1:10.

 

FWIW, I don't think you're lying but I do think it's hard to believe. Logically based on the science as we currently understand it, it doesn't make sense. There is obviously a variable that none of us sees here.

The only other thing I can think of to further prove your point would be GPS coordinates and drain the tank to empty, fill it up and the start the test with pictures showing you got the full ~12gals of gas.

I can't wrap my head around this.

 

HAHA, its pretty cool to see the DashDaq I sold you. Glad I sold it to you and you gave it good use.

 

Thanks man. I don't think people understand that I'm on their side on this. I wouldn't believe it either if I hadn't seen it and been there myself, so I understand that people don't believe it. I just don't stand for the part where they take it too far and call me a liar though.

I agree with what people are saying. Logically a car that's rated for upper 20s / lower 30s highway mpg somehow getting low-to-mid 30s mpg on E85, a fuel that due to it's chemical makeup should get ~30% less mileage per gallon, is quite unexpected and doesn't make sense. Chevycobaltss3 is right-on about the his point on the chemistry of it.

E85 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My only guess is the same as yours; That there is something that is happening we don't understand.

I'm wondering now what might happen on 93, but I'd probably just be right back to stoking the internet flame at this point.

 

Thank you again for selling it to me! I know there was a time when you kinda felt like you wish you hadn't sold it, but I assure you it's getting good use. I use it every day, and it's come in handy as well as saved my butt many times.