E-85

[kide]

Brian:
I take issue with the suggestion that all you need is an adjustable carb with a brass float and copper fuel lines. This might be OK in a short term, but if you reference back to the original post on the first page, the list (admittedly for an automotive, not small, engine ) indicates that more internal engine parts - magnesium, aluminum, rubber, etc - will have long term issues with the high ethanol content. By the way, in looking at that list again, I wondered if "terne" was a typo - nope, it's the term for the tin/soft iron combo used for the sheet metal in automotive (and older small engine) gas tanks..

Again no arguments about the potential for alternative fuels, but at this point I am objecting to all the money (a lot of it tax money) backing one solution (pun)..

 

[kweaver]

and not to mention if you want a flex fuel car you'll have to pay about twice the price for the car ... or is the guvment gonna pass'em out with the digital tv cupons ??

 

[kide]

Hey-Hey-Hey!!!! ...The digital TV scam is <u>my</u> rant - remember ??

 

[dsauve]

What happened to common sense? Less is definatly not more here. I really would prefer to run only 87 octane straight gas. Alcohol is a decent replacement for gasoline but it is not interchangeable. Engines that run alcohol use different sealing materials, and materials fuel lines and tanks.

 

[hcole]

When Henry Ford first started mass production of the automobile the engines that he put into them ran on straight alcohol,oil hadn't been discovered yet! Only after it's discovery and oil producers promises that their new product would be CHEAPER did Ford reconfigure the alcohol burners to run gasoline. The technology to run straight alcohol is there it just needs to be remembered.

 

[hsimon]

Terry - I tend to disagree with that article ya posted. A coworker of mine has a Flexfuel Silverado and last spring it was cheaper for him to run E85 through it and all he saw was a 2 mile a gallon drop in fuel milage, so that news article that you are quoting must be a one sided opinion.

 

[lhinds]

I have a new flexfuel ford pickup. On a recent trip I tried ethanol and won't make that mistake again. It droped my mileage over three m p g and felt like i lost about 20 % power. I only bought it the one time.
Just my 2c

 

[kide]

Henri - there's no relearning needed - as already outlined, the technical issues have been identified and taken care of - that's why the multifuel cars are on the roads now - it's just an issue of how much energy per gallon is available..

Yeah - I keep seeing the story about Henry designing the Model T for gasohol - it was too expensive to produce back then ...hmmmm, must be there were no subsidies for producing it in 1908....

 

[stritle]

There is 0 difference in price of a flex fuel vehicle as compared to a regular.

One tank is not nearly enough of a comparison, and that drive the news station took is full of flaw.

I have been driving an FFV 08 Silverado for almost 1 year now. It have 24000 miles under my belt, comparing 3 fuels: E85, E10, and Pure 87.

Here is my pivot table summarizing mileage (Starting April 07 and ending Dec 07):


Average of Miles/Gallon
Fuel AVE MPG
87 15.3
91 13.7
E10 15.1
E85 12.9
AVERAGE 13.5


I have mostly run E10 and E85. E85 gives me 15% less mileage than E10. The price break here is 30-35 cents between the two fuels. There is no cost difference between the two fuels under this pricing structure. My test is a true comparison that was done over a multitude of miles, climates, and situations.

 

[blanasa]

Henri, Where did you hear that oil hadn't been discovered when Henry Ford was mass producing engines. The first US oil well was in 1859 in Titusville, Pa. Petroleum products were used in the construction of the Towers of Babylon (4000 years ago).

 

[tcbusch]

Hugh,
I have seen several articles about the mpg on E-85. They all point to poor economy for the price. I think a scientific approach is the best approach. It would be interesting so see the unbiased results of a cub hauler test. Maybe some of our fellow cubbers with Flex Fuel vehicles could run 1 week with and 1 week without E-85 and post their results. I would be interested in the results.

Here is the link to the Consumer Reports testing.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

I see Steve already did!

 

[dsauve]

Steve I wouldn't be all too proud of those results. I have an '85 Dodge truck that always runs better than 15 mpg on E10 or 87 octane. Converting to run on E85 wouldn't be all that hard but the drop in fuel milage isn't worth it.
I still don't see the logic of more gallons of E85 being more efficent than 87 octane. I'm all for something other than arab oil.
As far as the subsidies go, they need to go. Let the free market have at a new source and it will happen faster and cheaper. Gasoline wasn't subsidised by the gov't before it took over as the new fuel. The alcohol plant here in town has taken the state for millions without to much of a result. When the "unlimited" tax payers money is used there is no motivation for economical results quickly, when it is done from a private pocket there is alot of motivation to sucseed.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion with some, however these are my 2 cents.

 

[hcole]

Blanasa, What I should have said was that a way to mass produce gasoline wasn't invented until 1913, 10 years after the formation of Ford Motor Co. My bad.

 

[hcole]

Check this out http//running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/index.html

 

[hcole]

Crap, I guess I didn't do that right, a little help? please?

 

[blanasa]

Henri, I will concur with that.

 

[stritle]

Dean,

My dad's 01 Dodge 1500 has a 360 in it and he can't get better than 13 mpg. That is on E10. My truck, on E85 gets that same mileage! Sounds like I have the better of the two. Both trucks are 4x4 1/2 tons.

My 86 D150, which I wish I still had, regularly pulled 15 on E10. I could get 18 on the highway. This was with a 4 barrel carb. Why can't my new Chevy do any better than that?

 

[dsauve]

Steve you would think after 20 plus years they could do better. Come on a 360 hd v-8 with a four barrel, 4 speed trans and 4.56 gears should be worse on fuel than a new truck but for the most part this thing will out pull and out haul most new gas engine trucks and still get better mileage than them. It still rides and drives like a truck too, not like a car. If I could feed it e-85 I would but it ain't gonna happen. Propane or CNG maybe when the new motor goes in. That raises another question-- how many classic cars are there that simply lose value if converted from gasoline. My mothers 1979 Thunderbird coupe is all original with 48000 miles on it. The value sure would drop on a survivor after the conversion. Alcohol may be the best answer but there has to be a solution that works for the old stuff to.

 

[stritle]

Dean,

I doubt Dad's E85 converted 74 'Cuda would lose value, but I see where you are going.

Trucks sure aren't trucks anymore, no matter what fuel they burn.

 

[kide]

Anybody see 43 in Saudi Arabia today doing a Saber Dance with the state leaders ?? ( No - really!!) Maybe he went over there to warn them that E-85 is a success and they'd better drop their prices like they did after the oil embargo of the early 70's (kinda like a drug dealer doing a loss leader thing to keep the junkies hooked??) or we'll be running all the super tankers up the Mississippi to fill with E-85 for the Chinese..

(I may be hallucinating

- been a long night finding all the XP drivers for a Dell Inspiron 531s that came with Vista - Dell won't post 'em because of an agreement with Microsoft on systems released <u>only</u> for Vista.. This system sure is fast with XP - I might get one...)