 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / December 2006E85 gasoline?
I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent experiences with it? My vehicle (a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan 3.8L V6 w/ @ 65K miles) is supposedly capable of using it according to the manual but I have been a little leary of trying it. In our area it is about $.30 a gallon less than regular ethanol. Do I need to be concerned or cautious or should I give it a try? Mix half and half? Thanks! Steve > I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? ... My vehicle (a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan 3.8L V6 w/ > @ 65K miles) is supposedly capable of using it according to the manual > but I have been a little leary of trying it. ... I'm a little leery that the manual says it'll run on E85. E85 is 85% ethanol. Your car will probably run on 10-15% ethanol but I'd be surprised if it'll take E85. Than again, I've been wrong before... > I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent > experiences with it? My vehicle (a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan 3.8L V6 w/ > @ 65K miles) is supposedly capable of using it according to the manual > but I have been a little leary of trying it. If does say it is a flex fuel vehicle, capable of running on E85, it won't do any harm. However keep in mind, E85 is 85% ethanol. Most modern cars are not set up to tolerate anything above 10-15% ethanol. If you have the percentages backwards you might be misunderstanding what the manual is saying. A crude google search does turn up flex fuel 2000 caravans, but only with the 3.3L V6. quick and dirty, might not be right. Just be very sure the vehicle is meant to run on it, otherwise you might find yourself draining the fuel tank to get it going again. > A crude google search does turn up flex fuel 2000 caravans, but only with > the 3.3L V6. quick and dirty, might not be right. Thank you! I mistakenly said 3.8 but it IS a 3.3L V6, it is stamped right on the engine. Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85? Thanks again! Steve >> A crude google search does turn up flex fuel 2000 caravans, but only >> with the 3.3L V6. quick and dirty, might not be right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half > a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85? If the manual says it's OK for use with E85, then it's OK for use with E85. The problem with E85 is that the amount of alcohol in it is extremely damaging to the rubber components used in the fuel system of a car made for the usual maximum of E10. E85 cars use a different kind of rubber that *is* compatible with E85.  SignatureTegger >>A crude google search does turn up flex fuel 2000 caravans, but only with >>the 3.3L V6. quick and dirty, might not be right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half > a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85? I think you are missing something here. There's no such thing as "regular Ethanol," E85 *IS* the highest percentage of ethanol commonly available. "Regular" fuel is gasoline with 0, 5, 15, or 20% ethanol adulterat^H^H^H^H^H^ added to it :-) > > Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half > > a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > available. "Regular" fuel is gasoline with 0, 5, 15, or 20% ethanol > adulterat^H^H^H^H^H^ added to it :-) Yes! I am used to being accused of "missing something" all right! /:-D But here in MN I think the regular gas has 10% ethanol?? But not really sure. Steve > I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks! > Steve I drove a vehicle recently that was running e85. It burned about 10% more fuel than with regular gasoline but performance seemed ok. This was a new vehicle though. In my area e85 isnt that much cheaper so the milage difference makes it marginal at best and there are not many e85 stations . There is also E20 which might be a good way to try out a higher alcohol gas . Make very sure though that your car takes the E85 fuel. Steve Wrote: > I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks! > Steve As said make sure it is a flex fuel engine. What is the engine code? All reports I get on it it drops gas mileage some. So you may not save much in $. :grinyes: :lol: But if it is flex fuel try it and see what it does. SignatureMT-2500 http://www.automotiveforums.com We have a 1999 Plymouth Gr. Voyager with the flex-fuel engine and we had the same hesitation about trying the E85 fuel. But you don't need to worry. Other than some loss of mpg, you probably won't notice any difference. The engine automatically senses the E85 and adjusts itself to the fuel. Our van ran just fine on it. >I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks! > Steve > We have a 1999 Plymouth Gr. Voyager with the flex-fuel engine and we had the > same hesitation about trying the E85 fuel. But you don't need to worry. > Other than some loss of mpg, you probably won't notice any difference. The > engine automatically senses the E85 and adjusts itself to the fuel. Our van > ran just fine on it. Hey thanks! This gives me alot better feeling to try it now. Steve > > We have a 1999 Plymouth Gr. Voyager with the flex-fuel engine and we had the > > same hesitation about trying the E85 fuel. But you don't need to worry. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve I rented one of the new Impalas a few months ago with a flex-fuel engine. Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was a loss of power. It ran fine, but crushing the gas pedal didn't have nearly the same effect as it would have with the regular in the tank. The other negative I remember that nobody has mentioned as that the E85 STINKS! It's more booze than gasoline and if you spill a drop on yourself or the body of your car you will think your stuck in the 14th inning of an August baseball game by the smell of spilled beer. I was really disappointed with my experience. The stuff doesn't burn as well, so you don't break even on the cost/mileage. It really is the corn farmers boondoggle that some complain about. When they go to switchgrass for feed stock let me know. Matthew > ... > I was really disappointed with my experience. ... It really is the > corn farmers boondoggle that some complain about. When they go to > switchgrass for feed stock let me know. The supposed goal is not so much to reduce costs as it is to 'reduce dependence on foreign oil'. ADM is the big backer of corn-based ethanol. They have lots of lobbyists and make lots of campaign contributions. The farmers probably get a piece of it but the big beneficiary is ADM (and the politicians they buy). > Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was > a loss of power. Then GM did it wrong. Ethanol has a higher octane and should have produced more power if the engine management system was done right. See the ford "Super Stallion" concept. > > Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was > > a loss of power. > > Then GM did it wrong. Ethanol has a higher octane and should have > produced more power if the engine management system was done right. > See the ford "Super Stallion" concept. LOL! Higher octane = no pre-ignition only, it has zip to do with the power in a unit of fuel. There is a lot less energy produced per liter of fuel in that corn crap than gasoline. My old fashioned carb engine just about refuses to run period on a 15% mix. It loses all top end power, staggers at idle and get crappy 'gas' mileage, really crappy because of the top end loss. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >> > Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was >> > a loss of power. >> >> Then GM did it wrong. Ethanol has a higher octane and should have >> produced more power if the engine management system was done right. >> See the ford "Super Stallion" concept. > LOL! Right back at ya. > Higher octane = no pre-ignition only, it has zip to do with the power in > a unit of fuel. All by itself it doesn't. But with increased octane, the engine management system should advance the timing to _USE_ the increased octane to produce more power. Dedicated E85 engines can have an increased compression ratio for more power. > There is a lot less energy produced per liter of fuel in that corn crap > than gasoline. That's why the engine management system should increase the volume of fuel each injector sends into the cylinder per firing as ethanol percentage increases. > My old fashioned carb engine just about refuses to run period on a 15% > mix. It loses all top end power, staggers at idle and get crappy 'gas' > mileage, really crappy because of the top end loss. Because your old fashioned carb engine cannot dynamically change engine timing and fuel metering nor can it detect changes in fuel composition. A modern flex fuel vehicle should be able to do all of that. If a modern GM flex fuel vehicle had less power on E85 it's because GM screwed up or cheaped out on the engine management system. > >> > Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was > >> > a loss of power. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > GM flex fuel vehicle had less power on E85 it's because GM screwed up or > cheaped out on the engine management system. I have been under the 'definite' impression that there is only so much compromise they can pull off and the end result is still poor performance and poor 'gas' mileage. My engine just shows one extreme, an engine that 'only' uses ethanol would be the other extreme. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >> A modern flex fuel vehicle should be able to do all of that. If a modern >> GM flex fuel vehicle had less power on E85 it's because GM screwed up or >> cheaped out on the engine management system. > I have been under the 'definite' impression that there is only so much > compromise they can pull off and the end result is still poor > performance and poor 'gas' mileage. Poor performance is an issue only if the engine management system is not set up to make use of the ethanol. Having an engine management system that can sense and react to changes in fuel composition is what a flex fuel vehicle should have. Fuel economy as measured in distance per unit volume of fuel will always be dependent on energy per unit volume of fuel in some form or fashion. Flex fuel and using ethanol are good things if properly implemented. The problem is that corn based ethanol using oil to produce it and perhaps some flex vehicles aren't that. The idea is to make ethanol without using oil and have flex fuel vehicles that take advantage of ethanol's properties. > My engine just shows one extreme, an engine that 'only' uses ethanol > would be the other extreme. I argued what a proper engine management system of a flex fuel vehicle should do. >>> A modern flex fuel vehicle should be able to do all of that. If a modern >>> GM flex fuel vehicle had less power on E85 it's because GM screwed up or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > volume of fuel will always be dependent on energy per unit volume of > fuel in some form or fashion. That is what flex fuel vehicles have. They sense the increased alcohol content and increase timing and injector duration. The problem is that the lower compression ratio for the current gasoline does not allow for any power increase due to the lower energy available in the alcohol. Another problem being seen in flex fuel vehicles has been increased wear due to the washing effect of the alcohol in the cylinders. I would almost think that a possible solution would be a variable compression ratio. Perhaps by using an additional chamber cast in the head and a solenoid valve. It could be opened to lower compression and closed to raise compression. Or another possibility could be a small turbocharger used to boost induction pressure when needed. > Flex fuel and using ethanol are good things if properly implemented. The > problem is that corn based ethanol using oil to produce it and perhaps some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I argued what a proper engine management system of a flex fuel vehicle > should do. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > That is what flex fuel vehicles have. They sense the increased alcohol > content and increase timing and injector duration. The problem is that > the lower compression ratio for the current gasoline does not allow for > any power increase due to the lower energy available in the alcohol. Ford apparently was able to get increased power some years ago. See super stallion. http://www.muscularmustangs.com/database2/superstallion.php > Another problem being seen in flex fuel vehicles has been increased wear > due to the washing effect of the alcohol in the cylinders. If you're flooding cylinder walls with liquid fuel, gasoline or alcohol it's going to be bad. The only references I can find for increased cylinder wear on E85 is if the fuel is contaminated with water. Contaminated gasoline isn't good for a car either. > > That is what flex fuel vehicles have. They sense the increased alcohol > > content and increase timing and injector duration. The problem is that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cylinder wear on E85 is if the fuel is contaminated with water. > Contaminated gasoline isn't good for a car either. At least the water goes to the bottom of a gas tank. It mixes with alcohol.... My Jeep Cherokee's owners manual states to use 'no' alcohol of any kind mixes, no matter how many 'drying agents' they say they have in them. If in an emergency, only put enough in to get to 'real' gas. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > At least the water goes to the bottom of a gas tank. It mixes with > alcohol.... Which is where the fuel pump pickup is. > > At least the water goes to the bottom of a gas tank. It mixes with > > alcohol.... > > Which is where the fuel pump pickup is. That's what gas line antifreeze is for.... It is alcohol that mixes with the water in your tank so it can 'burn' away.... The problem is in the 'gas' station's tanks. They are allowed to have somewhere about 6" of water in the bottom of their tanks from condensation before their pickup starts getting it so the tank bottom has to be pumped out. They actually put some color changing gray past on the dipsticks to test for this every so often. This water stays down there in a 'gas' tank. In an 'ethanol' tank, this condensation water mixes up and gets pumped into your tank which can rot any steel parts in the fuel supply system. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >> > At least the water goes to the bottom of a gas tank. It mixes with >> > alcohol.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's what gas line antifreeze is for.... It is alcohol that mixes > with the water in your tank so it can 'burn' away.... Creating the problem that you are considering a fatal flaw of ethanol. > This water stays down there in a 'gas' tank. In an 'ethanol' tank, this > condensation water mixes up and gets pumped into your tank which can rot > any steel parts in the fuel supply system. Flex fuel cars don't use carbon steel fuel system components, they use stainless. >>>> A modern flex fuel vehicle should be able to do all of that. If a >>>> modern [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the lower compression ratio for the current gasoline does not allow for > any power increase due to the lower energy available in the alcohol. Not necessarily. The Ford 3.0L Flex Fuel engine actually had about 5% more power on E85 vs gasoline. Two factors at work here. One, the higher octane rating allows closer to optimal ignition timing (not necessarily more advance) and two, the significantly higher latent heat of vaporization improves volumetric efficiency. > Another problem being seen in flex fuel vehicles has been increased wear > due to the washing effect of the alcohol in the cylinders. Any volume produced flex fuel engine should pass the manufacturer's durability testing. This would include tests for abnormal bore wear. > Flex fuel and using ethanol are good things if properly implemented. The > problem is that corn based ethanol using oil to produce it and perhaps some > flex vehicles aren't that. The idea is to make ethanol without using oil > and have flex fuel vehicles that take advantage of ethanol's properties. Corn-based ethanol is really an inefficient means of fuel production. Brazil is heavy into sugar cane based ethanol production, which doesn't require anywhere near the energy output to produce, and probably doesn't need fertilizer. I've heard that sugar cane can practically be planted and left alone until ready for harvest. >> Flex fuel and using ethanol are good things if properly implemented. The >> problem is that corn based ethanol using oil to produce it and perhaps some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > probably doesn't need fertilizer. I've heard that sugar cane can > practically be planted and left alone until ready for harvest. The idea is not use oil in the process and ideally have all the energy for the process come from the plants. While one part of the sugar cane plant produces ethanol another part of the plant is used to produce the energy for the process making it very good. Corn based ethanol can work if the energy for it's process comes from something vehicles can't use, like windpower. Ethanol can be a better 'battery' than any battery technology available to run vehicles on energy from wind, nuke, hydro, etc. >>Flex fuel and using ethanol are good things if properly implemented. The >>problem is that corn based ethanol using oil to produce it and perhaps some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > probably doesn't need fertilizer. I've heard that sugar cane can > practically be planted and left alone until ready for harvest. Of course Brazil razed an awful lot of rain-forest to turn into fields to gro sugar cane.... :-/ >>>> Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was >>>>a loss of power. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > management system should advance the timing to _USE_ the increased > octane to produce more power. Nope. You get NO more power beyond a certain point when advancing timing. When you've advanced the timing to the point that peak pressure occurs before TDC, you actually start losing power again (and adding internal stress also). Dedicated E85 engines can have an increased > compression ratio for more power. Yep. No longer a "flex fuel" vehicle, but a true alky-burner. >> All by itself it doesn't. But with increased octane, the engine >> management system should advance the timing to _USE_ the increased [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > occurs before TDC, you actually start losing power again (and adding > internal stress also). That in no way invalidates what I stated above. Of course there is a limit it to it, but before that limit is reached power is increased. Again, I point to the existing vehicles that do so. If I was wrong these vehicles wouldn't exist. >> Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was >>a loss of power. > > Then GM did it wrong. Ethanol has a higher octane and should have > produced more power if the engine management system was done right. > See the ford "Super Stallion" concept. The only way to eke out the extra potential is to raise the static compression ratio substantially... and if you do THAT, its no longer a "flex fuel" vehicle because it won't run on gasoline without detonating. You don't gain anything just by advancing the snot out of the timing on ethanol. Ethanol is a non-starter as a fuel IMHO. Its "cool" now that there's a relatively small demand, but it will never replace gasoline. Vegetable oil may eventually replace DIESEL, I can see that happening. But not gasoline. > The only way to eke out the extra potential is to raise the static > compression ratio substantially... and if you do THAT, its no longer a > "flex fuel" vehicle because it won't run on gasoline without detonating. > You don't gain anything just by advancing the snot out of the timing on > ethanol. Yet, some of the extra potential is gained with mere timing changes by the engine management system.... since the vehicles exist that do so I don't know how else to better prove it. > Ethanol is a non-starter as a fuel IMHO. Its "cool" now that there's a > relatively small demand, but it will never replace gasoline. Vegetable > oil may eventually replace DIESEL, I can see that happening. But not > gasoline. Ethanol is viable if made correctly. However the political process has been dominated by ADM's lobbists so that's probably not going to happen outside of HI. >>The only way to eke out the extra potential is to raise the static >>compression ratio substantially... and if you do THAT, its no longer a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the engine management system.... since the vehicles exist that do so I > don't know how else to better prove it. The systems that do that really just make it "less worse" to borrow one of Dan Stern's phrases. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ethanol is viable if made correctly. I have yet to see any numbers that really prove that, although the South American sugar-cane based process where the stalks are used to fuel part of the distillation process is probably in the black energy-wise. I seriously doubt that its anywhere near a net gain pollution-wise, though, considering that a) I'll bet the stalks don't burn very cleanly and b) even if it is now "carbon neutral" the land used to produce the sugar cane was FORMERLY rain-forest, and a far more efficient carbon trap than sugar cane (not counting all the carbon released during the clearing of the rain-forest in the first place.) >> Yet, some of the extra potential is gained with mere timing changes by >> the engine management system.... since the vehicles exist that do so I >> don't know how else to better prove it. > > The systems that do that really just make it "less worse" to borrow one > of Dan Stern's phrases. How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? >> Ethanol is viable if made correctly. > I have yet to see any numbers that really prove that, It's fairly logical, don't use oil to make it. > seriously doubt that its anywhere near a net gain pollution-wise, I didn't argue ethanol was better pollution wise. It's different, better is hard to say. > though, considering that a) I'll bet the stalks don't burn very cleanly > and b) even if it is now "carbon neutral" the land used to produce the > sugar cane was FORMERLY rain-forest, and a far more efficient carbon > trap than sugar cane (not counting all the carbon released during the > clearing of the rain-forest in the first place.) I'd like ethanol to succeed simply be another choice so that the schemes being used to keep gasoline and oil prices high would fail. >>>Yet, some of the extra potential is gained with mere timing changes by >>>the engine management system.... since the vehicles exist that do so I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? Because those systems *never* reach the same power on ethanol that they do on gasoline, and also never reach the same power (or efficiency) that could be attained on ethanol with a higher static compression ratio. I suppose a forced-induction system with the boost pressure under computer control could live in the best of both worlds, but AFIAK there aren't any forced-induction FFVs out there right now. Which kinda tells me that the automakers are still hedging their bets when it comes to FFV. > I'd like ethanol to succeed simply be another choice so that the schemes > being used to keep gasoline and oil prices high would fail. Oh, I agree its a good club over the head for OPEC and the gasoline tax fiends. My only point in being critical of ethanol is really that biodiesel has an inherent advantage because it works right now without any changes to the engines (or even engine management systems) at all. > > How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any forced-induction FFVs out there right now. Which kinda tells me that > the automakers are still hedging their bets when it comes to FFV. SAAB has a turbo FFV. It gets better mileage and power on E85. Power is up 20% and mileage is similar. The 9-5 series. I think Ford has a model(or is working on a model) that is turbo'ed as well. A lot of tech DIY'ers have played around with idea as well. It has a lot of merit. JW >> How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? > Because those systems *never* reach the same power on ethanol that they > do on gasoline, and also never reach the same power (or efficiency) that > could be attained on ethanol with a higher static compression ratio. The comparison was versus gasoline... An E85 only engine would not be practical given today's infastructure. > >> How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The comparison was versus gasoline... An E85 only engine would not be > practical given today's infastructure. Who said anything about e85 only? An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. An E85 capable vehicle can (and will) burn anything from E0(straight gasoline) UP TO E85. But many vehicles dont' take advantage of the flexibity. By tuning so that gas can be burned, the advantges of E85 are typically discarded. The SAAB 9-5 uses variable compression(ie boost) to compensate for the higher octane that E85 offers and takes advantage of it, but leaves the capability to dynamically "de-tune" so that "normal" pump gas can be burned. JW >> >> How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> The comparison was versus gasoline... An E85 only engine would not be >> practical given today's infastructure. > Who said anything about e85 only? read the thread back.... > An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. No. > An E85 capable vehicle can (and will) burn anything from > E0(straight gasoline) UP TO E85. But many vehicles dont' take > advantage of the flexibity. By tuning so that gas can be burned, the > advantges of E85 are typically discarded. It depends on the solution used. > The SAAB 9-5 uses variable compression(ie boost) to compensate for the > higher octane that E85 offers and takes advantage of it, but leaves the > capability to dynamically "de-tune" so that "normal" pump gas can be > burned. And that's just the sort of thing I was talking about... > > An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. > > No. Explain the difference then. I do not know of a FFV that does not burn E85. The media(and mfg's) use the term interchangeably. FFV would imply that something else could be burned, but I don't know of anything out on the market besides ethanol and gasoline. (I acknowledge very limited availabiliy of methanol blends) JW >> > An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. >> >> No. > Explain the difference then. I do not know of a FFV that does not burn > E85. If you make a vehicle strictly for E85, you bump up the compression ratio (without forced induction) such that it is no longer wise to run the engine on pump gasoline. >>>> An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. >>> No. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (without forced induction) such that it is no longer wise to run the > engine on pump gasoline. The catch then becomes the problem of finding the fuel for it in many places. Adding a small turbo with controls would be a much better idea. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York >>>An E85 vehicle or a FFV is the same thing. >> >>No. > > Explain the difference then. An "E85 vehicle" would not be able to tolerate burning gasoline, an FFV can. I do not know of a FFV that does not burn > E85. We're not talking about something that currently exists. A hypothetical "E85 vehicle" that is optimized for E85 would be much more efficient than an FFV burning E85 at low compression. >>>How is more power 'less worse' than the power output you started with? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The comparison was versus gasoline... An E85 only engine would not be > practical given today's infastructure. Exactly. And patching it up by advancing the timing is half-assed at best (although better than "no-assed," I suppose.) To me it seems really lame run at super low efficiency when going to ethanol is supposedly all about being resource-conscious in the first place. But like I said, forced induction is ideal for an FFV. > I see there hasn't been much discussion for over a year or so on the > use of E85 gasoline? Just wondering what are the most recent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks! > Steve If you meant a 3.3 engine you MAY have a flex fuel vehicle. That was the ONLY engine in the vans offered with the flex option. Take a look at the VIN number. If the 8th character in the VIN is E , G or 3 It has a flex fuel engine in it and can run E85, It should also have a gas cap labeled as E85/Gasoline. If it doesn't have these items DON'T USE E85, it WILL damage the converter and the engine by running lean. Oh and if you do run E85 expect to lose mileage and use more fuel. From an article called the Top ten facts about Flex Fuel vehicles. By Brian Chee http://snipurl.com/15apq Simply put, a flex-fuel vehicle using gasoline travels farther, at a clip of about 3 miles per gallon. That’s what we discovered while driving a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche with flex-fuel capability. We clocked an average fuel economy of 13.4 miles per gallon using regular grade unleaded – not so hot, but much better than E85. A tank of E85 gasoline registered just 10.4 miles per gallon under virtually identical driving conditions. This makes the use the E85 more expensive, by around $20 more per tank. And while that may seem like chump change, it’s exactly the opposite of what people are currently looking to accomplish. SignatureSteve W. > Take a look at the VIN number. If the 8th character in the VIN is E , G > or 3 It has a flex fuel engine in it and can run E85, It should also > have a gas cap labeled as E85/Gasoline. The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere on it that I can see? > Oh and if you do run E85 expect to lose mileage and use more fuel. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > more per tank. And while that may seem like chump change, it's exactly > the opposite of what people are currently looking to accomplish. Currently I get about 23 mpg on regular ethanol gas. Do you think I would lose more than 3 mpg? I figured if E85 is about 30 cents a gal less than regular and if I lost 3 mpg off of 23 mpg that I would do just a couple dollars better than break even over 1000 miles of driving. Probably not worth the worry of what it will do to my engine............ Thanks! Steve >> Take a look at the VIN number. If the 8th character in the VIN is E , G >> or 3 It has a flex fuel engine in it and can run E85, It should also >> have a gas cap labeled as E85/Gasoline. > > The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere > on it that I can see? If the VIN is G your OK. >> Oh and if you do run E85 expect to lose mileage and use more fuel. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Steve The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20% range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped expect the price to jump at least 58 cents. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20% > range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped > expect the price to jump at least 58 cents. If the price jumps that much, the gas stations will be tying up a tank that will never get used.... But then who knows??? Steve >> The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20% >> range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve They won't have to worry. They can just blend it into the normal gasoline. 99% of the regular sold in the US already is 10% Ethanol anyway. If your in a state like NY or CA it is even higher% in the winter. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere > on it that I can see? It's not on the gas cap, its on the inside (or backside) of the gas filler door. It's a decal that says use unleaded gasoline or E85 ethanol. Make sure it's there before you try E85. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.