Weighing in on oxygenated-fuel issue

Dear Bob: I really appreciate you and your newspaper column. You are the only reason I look forward to reading our local Sunday paper!

I’ve followed your advice through the years resulting in near-zero breakdowns — thanks to your preventive-maintenance advice — with four drivers in our family. I also have enjoyed numerous high-mileage vehicles, all with nonstop fine performance.

I wanted to input on the oxygenated-fuel issue recently brought up in your column. Your response about ethanol reducing fuel economy, sometimes dramatically, was completely accurate.

I’m in sales and drive 30,000 to 40,000 miles per year, and I check gas mileage on every tank of gas, as I have also done on all of our family vehicles. Which is also, as you have noted, a good way to catch any engine problems when they are first beginning.

In the mid-1990s I drove a Nissan Sentra and got 41 mpg. One winter I noticed a drop to 35 mpg, a 15-percent drop. I found that it was due to a gas station selling oxygenated fuel, which was not mandatory at that time. I changed stations and resumed my 41 mpg.

In central Pennsylvania oxygenated fuel is now all that is available in the winter. Our Honda drops from 23 mpg to 19 mpg, my Chevy Impala drops from 27 to 25 and my daughter’s vehicles both drop from the middle 20s to the low 20s.

I may not be the sharpest pencil in the pack, but I’d bet that the extra fuel consumed when using ethanol blends, along with the extra emissions caused by needing to burn 15 percent to 20 percent more fuel to drive the same distance, outweigh the supposed benefit of oxygenated fuels.

That may be why the EPA has information that misleads some folks, such as the readers that wrote to you believing that ethanol causes only a 2-to-3-percent drop in fuel economy. This is simply bogus.

Thanks for your expertise, Bob. Sincerely,

— B.G., Harrisburg, Pa.

A: Thanks for the input. I’ll let your observations speak for themselves.

It is interesting to note, however, that flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on E85 — a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline — on straight gasoline or on any mixture of the two, get far fewer mpgs when E85 is used.

For instance, a flexible-fuel Chevy Silverado K1500 4WD is rated at 14 city and 17 highway on gasoline. Using E85, its fuel economy drops to 10 mpg city and 13 mpg highway.

That 29-percent drop in city mileage and 24-percent drop in highway mileage using E85 hints, perhaps, at what you can expect when ethanol is blended into your gasoline during the winter months. Other flexible-fuel vehicles, from compact cars to SUVs, experience similar drops in fuel economy when E85 is used.

Dear Bob: I have a 2003 Cadillac CTS, which I recently bought used.

When I took the vehicle into a quick-lube to have the oil changed, I was informed that the service couldn’t be done because the CTS’s oil-drain plug was in such a position that they could not access it with the wrenches they had on hand.

They told me a special wrench with a star pattern was needed and that it had to be very thin, because there was no space between the plug and the exhaust system, which was only a few inches away.

Have you ever heard of such a thing?

— E.C., Dallas, Texas

A: I talked to two different Cadillac service persons, and both said that there was no problem removing the CTS’s drain plug and that they had no idea why a quick lube wouldn’t be able to do it. I also talked to a local quick-lube, and was told that they have no problem removing the drain plug from a CTS.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to check in with another quick-lube company or even visit a Cadillac service department for future oil changes.

AMERICAN DRIVERS FIGHT BACK

Here’s a tip that will help you get better gas mileage while fighting terrorism and cutting our nation’s dependence on Mideastern oil:

Most sport-utility vehicles are equipped with either full-time or part-time four-wheel drive, or with some variation thereof. Full-time four-wheel drive invariably gets poorer fuel economy than does part-time four-wheel drive, in which the driver can select when he or she wants the vehicle in 4-WD mode. However, even vehicles equipped with part-time 4-WD get poorer fuel economy than comparable 2-WD vehicles.

Four-wheel drive uses more fuel, on average, because the engine has another axle to power. In addition, SUVs usually have higher axle ratios and larger engines, both fuel gulpers. Combine these with the weight of the extra drive axle, the weight of the vehicle itself and the fact that many SUVs use wide, all-terrain tires, and you have a rolling package of fuel inefficiency.

If you are contemplating buying a 4-WD vehicle, compare the EPA-estimated fuel economies of all SUVs — visit www.fueleconomy.gov or pick up a copy of the EPA’s “Fuel Economy Guide” at any new-car dealer — before making a decision. The difference in cost, both in buying and in operating such a vehicle, can be considerable. You might end up deciding that two wheels are enough for your needs!