 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / June 2008Effects of Ethanol fuel
I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 liter? Technically, that's 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol. What adverse affect are you thinking of? The engine is designed for ethanol use, so there should be no adverse affect as a result of using it. An Ethanol motor does not require ethanol be used, it merely allows ethanol to be used. >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 > liter? > Technically, that's 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 >> liter? Other way around. 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 >> Technically, that's 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 Interesting. I did not know that there was so much ethanol in the blend. Do they always make it that way, or am I right that they do it with 85% gas and 15% alcohol in some places. We don't have ethanol here that I am aware of. >>> Technically, that's 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > gas and 15% alcohol in some places. We don't have ethanol here that I am > aware of. Not all stations have E85, it will be marked as not all vehicles can handle it. Not only are there computer changes, but some seals have to be changed as alcohol is tough on them. Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, although to be honest, as you burn more with less pollution, I don't know what benefits there are. Less fuel with more pollution per mile, or more fuel with less pollution per mile. Sounds almost like a flip a coin situation. E85 is even worse as far as mileage. >Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, ... Not necessarily so. It varies station to station. Some (around here - NC) are more likely to use it than others. >> Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, ... > > Not necessarily so. It varies station to station. Some (around > here - NC) are more likely to use it than others. A lot depends upon the state and whether emission inspections are required. Around here in MD, all stations use 10% ethanol. >>> Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, ... >> >> Not necessarily so. It varies station to station. Some (around >> here - NC) are more likely to use it than others. >A lot depends upon the state and whether emission inspections are >required. Around here in MD, all stations use 10% ethanol. One of my clients here is the Petroleum Marketers Association. I had a talk with one of the engineers there a few months back about this topic. He indicated it was pretty much up to the distributor and that the ecotards had gotten a law enacted prohibiting the labelling of the pumps as to whether they contained it or not. I run race bikes that do not like ethanol. He said some stations were more likely to run blends and others less so. Around here, Shell, Mobil, Exxon are less likely and BP more so. Not a given, but a start. The distributor will apparently indicate so if they're asked. >>>> Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, >>>> ... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > but a start. The distributor will apparently indicate so if > they're asked. In my area (NC) the Murphy Stations and Crown Stations have labels indicating that their gasolines contain ethanol. Ed >In my area (NC) the Murphy Stations and Crown Stations have labels >indicating that their gasolines contain ethanol. Do they specifically state that they *do* contain ethanol or that they *may*? I've noticed a lot that indicate that there's a possibility. >>In my area (NC) the Murphy Stations and Crown Stations have labels >>indicating that their gasolines contain ethanol. > > Do they specifically state that they *do* contain ethanol or that > they *may*? I've noticed a lot that indicate that there's a > possibility. Murphy says their fuel definitely contains ethanol, Crown says it may (at least the station I stopped at). The Murphy station actually had some silly label that looked like an ear of corn tie wrapped onto the hose near the filler nozzle. The Crown label was less obvious (and faded, indicating that it was old). Ed >>> Just about all regular gas is about 10% for "environmental" reasons, ... >> >> Not necessarily so. It varies station to station. Some (around >> here - NC) are more likely to use it than others. > A lot depends upon the state and whether emission inspections are > required. Around here in MD, all stations use 10% ethanol. Most of Maryland is classed as a "Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area." For these areas, the EPA requires oxygenated fuels. The primary additive to create these fuels is ethanol. Personally, I'd much rather have ethanol than MBTE (the former favorite oxygenate). Area that aren't classified as "Ozone Nonattainment Areas" don't require oxygenated fuels. Gasoline with Ethanol may be sold in these areas, but it is not required. Ed Its about lowering the MPG of all things using it. Remember gas tax is based on the number of gallons. More gallons more tax revenue. Government creates the problems real and imagined that they then stand up to fix. >>>> Technically, that's 85% gasoline, 15% ethanol. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > more fuel with less pollution per mile. Sounds almost like a flip a coin > situation. E85 is even worse as far as mileage. > "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 Not all states require this. In this area of SC, about the only one that does use ethanol is Enmark. Personally, I don't use it since the main reason is to preserve what fuel reserves we have. Unfortunately, when I run 10% ethanol, my mileage decreases by almost 20% (2002 Escape, V6 auto, 56K miles), and since the difference per gallon is only 2-3 cents, I'm losing my butt using it. SC Tom >> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > decreases by almost 20% (2002 Escape, V6 auto, 56K miles), and since the > difference per gallon is only 2-3 cents, I'm losing my butt using it. There is no way that should happen. Ethanol has 85% as much energy as regular gasoline. So if you have 10% ethanol, at the most the energy content is reduced by 1.5%. On several occasions I have purchased the ethanol gasoline at the Murphy stations in my area (NC) and I can't detect any difference in fuel economy (2006 Nissan Frontier V6 and 2007 Ford Fusion V6). I keep careful records, so I am sure a 20% decrease would be obvious. Ten years ago, during the winter months, we were forced to use oxygenated gasoline. I could some difference when using that stuff (around 3% decrease) but I have never seen anything like a 20% decrease, nor would I expect to. Your 2002 Escape should be easily able to compensate for the use of E10 with minimal effect. If you are really getting a 20% decrease, there is something wrong with your car. Ed >>> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ed I keep meticulous records on everything I do to my cars, including where I fill up, brand and octane of the gas I use, when and what kind of oil, transmission fluid, etc. used, all that good stuff. If I run Citgo 87 octane, I get 20-21 around town and 25 on the highway. When running Enmark 87, I get 17 around town and only 20 on the highway. Thinking that maybe the car did have to adjust to the ethanol, I ran 3 tanks in a row. Same results for all 3. When I went back to the Citgo, my mileage immediately went back to normal. There are 2 Enmark stations in town, and about 3 or 4 months after trying the first experiment, I repeated it using the other station. Same results! After mentioning this to a couple of people at work, I was told they were having the same problem (resulting poor mileage). If there were any real problems with my car, I'm sure other things would crop up besides poor mileage on 10% ethanol. SC Tom >>> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There is no way that should happen. Ethanol has 85% as much energy as > regular gasoline. So if you have 10% ethanol, at the most the energy as much as I am for ethanol, the btu difference is about 65% not 85. KB > content is reduced by 1.5%. On several occasions I have purchased the > ethanol gasoline at the Murphy stations in my area (NC) and I can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ed  SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others >>>> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 85. > KB I was wrong when I quoted 85% for ethanol. Still, E10 should have around 96.5% as much energy as pure gasoline. I wouldn't expect a mileage decrease of more than 3% or 4%. This is too small a decrease for people to reliably measure without keeping a logbook and averaging the results over many tank fulls of each type of fuel. As for the correct percentage for ethanol - I guess the correct number depends on who you ask and whether you mean per gallon or per pound....but the EPA agrees with you. However there are numerous different claims as to the energy content of ethanol, gasoline, and e85. If you pick the right values for gasoline and ethanol you can come up with ethanol having as little as 61% as much energy as gasoline per gallon or as much as 78% as much energy as gasoline per gallon. The pro-ethanol people like to use 78%, the anti-ethanol people like to use 61%. Probably 65% is a reasonable number. ethanol energy content = 75,700 to 84,600 Btu/gallon gasoline energy content = 109,000 to 125,000 Btu/gallon E85 =~ 80,000 to 94,190 BTU/gallon If you look at the EPA fuel economy results for Flex Fuel vehicles, they list the fuel economy on gasoline and on E85. In general the difference in mileage reflects the expected decrease based on the difference in energy content of the fuels (where E85 has about 75% as much energy as gasoline). I would expect similar results to be the case for E5 and E10. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in news:481762cf$1 @kcnews01: >>>>> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Ed in my own experience, this is all true in real life, except where 87 octain gasahol is used instead of 89. the 87 "can" be some nasty stuff. KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others > in my own experience, this is all true in real life, except where 87 > octain gasahol is used instead of 89. the 87 "can" be some nasty > stuff. I don't know how it works where you live, but around here 89 octane ("plus") gasoline is almost always auto-magically created at the pump by blending 87 octane ("regular") and 93 octane (premium) gasoline in the pump. There is no separate 87 gasoline delivered by the truck. In my opinion, 87 octane is the biggest rip off you can buy. Costco doesn't even bother to sell it. Regards, Ed White > I don't know how it works where you live, but around here 89 octane > ("plus") gasoline is almost always auto-magically created at the pump by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ed White I dont agree with the rip off aspect, but then I remember the days of Sunoco blends where you moved a selector lever on the side of the pump for the grade you wanted, and then the fuel was blended.as it was delivered. Same principal with blended scotch whiskey ; ). And around here I often see three lines feeding three tanks in the ground from the tankers. Costco and wally world by in volume and as such get a discount and realize 80% are going to go for the cheap stuff. why bother with the middle grade when they sell premium for a few cents more the the middle grade to begin with. Whitelightning "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4818ae80 @kcnews01: >> in my own experience, this is all true in real life, except where 87 >> octain gasahol is used instead of 89. the 87 "can" be some nasty [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ed White Here in Iowa you have reg unleaded that is 87 octain and then 89 octain 10% ethanol and then reg premium at 93. But in Minnesota they have some 10% ethanol that is 87 octain and that may or may not be crap gas. I have had both 87s at ok and horrible. KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others >>>>> "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Ed Some intresting numbers. However there seems to be a discrepancy between what the real world drivers experience and what those numbers imply they should. Could it be that chemical reactions happen based on molecular weight and not by volume. I don't want to look it up but what is the btu of ethanol per pound vs that of Gasoline. Perhaps the story is there. I do my fuel burn calculations in aircraft based on pounds per hour not gallons. They are different. My own experience is that after I leave California and burn gas from say Arizona, my MPG goes from 26 to 28. About an 8 percent improvment. As far as power. Seems to be a little peppier. Nothing to write home about. I have more available than I use most of the time anyway and I have yet to time myself from 0 to 70 getting on the freeway. To many other variables involved to get any kind of base line. My question is, what is the percentage reduction of bad gases using more fuel. Why I think its a gas tax scam. We need to vote those tax hungry enviroturds out of office. > "Normal" gasoline is already 10% ethanol. No, that is not true for everyone. Some areas have "normal gasoline" with ethanol, some don't. In my area, gasoline with ethanol is the exception, not the rule. Murphy and Crown sell gasoline with ethanol, the "big boys" don't. The Murphy gasoline in my area is E5 (5% ethanol). From http://www.exxon.com/USA-English/GFM/Products_Services/Fuels/Gasoline_FAQ.asp : "Do your gasolines contain Ethanol? "In many areas of the country, oxygenates are required to be part of the gasoline formula. In those areas, our gasolines will contain ethanol, which is classified as an oxygenate [US Fuel Requirements Map]. Ethanol is also used in California Cleaner Burning Gasoline and the Reformulated gasolines required in many of the major metropolitan areas of the country. In addition, to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard included as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, ethanol blends will be introduced to many more areas of the country over the next few years." See the Fuel Requirements Map at http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/GFM/Files/US_Gasoline_Map.pdf . Some state have rules specifically requiring the use of ethanol (Minnesota, Louisiana, others). Some state require the use of an oxygenate and ethanol is now preferred over MBTE (California, New Jersey, others). But many states don't require oxygenates in general or ethanol specifically. Regards, Ed White > >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 > > liter? I have the same in an '07. The adverse part of the performance is that ethanol gets about 20-30% LESS mileage than gasoline (it puts out less power). Given that (where I was buying it) ethanol is about 10-15% cheaper, I was still making a losing deal when running ethanol but ..running "greener" >> >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher >> > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Given that (where I was buying it) ethanol is about 10-15% cheaper, I was >still making a losing deal when running ethanol but ..running "greener" Once you do all the math, you were running far less "greener". > >> >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > >> > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Once you do all the math, you were running far less "greener". OK, lets change "greener" to using MORE IOWA corn vs LESS Canadian Oil >> >> >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the >> >> >higher [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > OK, lets change "greener" to using MORE IOWA corn vs LESS Canadian Oil Yeahbut- how much energy did it take to grow that corn, harvest it, transport it, and convert it to ethanol? And, have you checked the price of corn flakes lately? >>> >> >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the >>> >> >higher [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >And, have you checked the price of corn flakes lately? It's going to be almost as fun to watch the whole ethanol thing blow up in the eco-loser's face as it is the global warming thing. >>> >> >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the >>> >> >higher [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > And, have you checked the price of corn flakes lately? this blame the ethanol for food prices is pretty poor thinking at best. The amount of corn in that box of flakes has changed about 8 cents worth, BUT the price of labor and expecially transprotation cost due to the oil prices is very much higher. so put the blame where it really is, the high price of oil. KB Also the yield rate of ethanol from corn now is a net gain not a loss. SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others > this blame the ethanol for food prices is pretty poor thinking at best. > The amount of corn in that box of flakes has changed about 8 cents > worth, BUT the price of labor and expecially transprotation cost due to > the oil prices is very much higher. so put the blame where it really is, > the high price of oil. KB > Also the yield rate of ethanol from corn now is a net gain not a loss. > this blame the ethanol for food prices is pretty poor thinking at best. > The amount of corn in that box of flakes has changed about 8 cents > worth, BUT the price of labor and expecially transprotation cost due to > the oil prices is very much higher. so put the blame where it really is, > the high price of oil. KB > Also the yield rate of ethanol from corn now is a net gain not a loss. So the price increase from $3 a bushel three years ago to over $6 a bushel today has nothing to do with the price of food? Not to mention that farmers are dropping wheat and sugar beets to grow corn instead so the price of wheat flour as more than doubled as well. Its not just corn flour, its corn oil, and corn syrup a popular sweetener used in almost everything. and yes the cost of oil which drives up transportation cost from the mill to the end user. Transportatiin costs from the farmer to the grain silo as well as for farm equipment is on the farmer and out of his profits, nether of which he has control over. Whitelightning On May 6, 9:31 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> wrote: > >news:481ecf62$0$5698$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Whitelightning The big joke about corn ethanol as a petrol-substitute is that, depending on which university study you trust, every gallon produced has required the energy-equivalent of about a gallon of petrol - more or less, depending on whether the particular study was financed by the ethanol industry. And, as has been mentioned, the energy density of ethanol is less than petrol (just as that of diesel is higher). So you use the equivalent of about a gallon of petrol to produce a gallon of ethanol which will not take you as far. The distortion of the corn/ food market, pollution problems etc. are additional 'advantages' which the ethanol subsidies have purchased. > On May 6, 9:31 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > food market, pollution problems etc. are additional 'advantages' which > the ethanol subsidies have purchased. You are wayyyy behind the curve on the ethanol yield from corn. It is about 1.5 right now with advances in efficiency almost every month. It hasn`t been 1 to 1 since almost the first plants opened up. KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others Kevin, I have noticed different fuel mileage from tank to tank: 1 excellent fuel mileage, many in the middle range and 1 very poor. Do you think there are variances in the manufacturibg of Ethanol? Bob >> On May 6, 9:31 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > about 1.5 right now with advances in efficiency almost every month. It > hasn`t been 1 to 1 since almost the first plants opened up. KB > Kevin, > > I have noticed different fuel mileage from tank to tank: 1 excellent > fuel mileage, many in the middle range and 1 very poor. Do you think > there are variances in the manufacturibg of Ethanol? Bob There have deff. been differences in the past. It is supposted to be much tighter controlled now, but the gas blended with it varies more than the ethanol now. so it is getting hard to be sure what causes what now. KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others >>> On May 6, 9:31 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> about 1.5 right now with advances in efficiency almost every month. >> It hasn`t been 1 to 1 since almost the first plants opened up. KB >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 > liter? I don't know if this is what you mean, but horsepower will suffer, and fuel mileage will suffer. My '07 F150 loses about 4mpg on 85/15 ethanol. I drive a lot, so I don't run E85 anymore. Spdloader >>I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher >> level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Spdloader This is because for a given volume, ethanol has less chemical energy than gasoline does. >> <jdubyah62@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:14454dc6-e130-448e- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is because for a given volume, ethanol has less chemical energy than > gasoline does. Thanks David, I'm aware of the properties of ethanol, just trying to answer the OPs question. Spdloader >>> <jdubyah62@gmail.com> wrote in message news:14454dc6-e130-448e- >> b943-5fcba8d77773@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Spdloader Yes, I should have posted that as a response to the OP, not you. Sorry. >>I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher >> level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Spdloader I wouldn't expect the power to suffer noticeably. The PCM should compensate by adding more fuel. If anything, I'd expect slightly higher maximum power. A 4 mpg decrease is exactly what the EPA predicts for a 2007 FFV F150. It is a little greater than I would have predicted based on the change in energy content (E85 should have a round 80% as much energy per gallon as regular gasoline, depending on the figure you use for regular gasoline) but I suppose other factors are at work. The EPA admits that fuel econmy can drop by 20% to 30% when using E85 (compared to regular gasoline). They do support my claim that the performance should not be affected by the use of E85 (see http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml ). Ed Ed ///snipped for brevity/// > I wouldn't expect the power to suffer noticeably. The PCM should > compensate by adding more fuel. If anything, I'd expect slightly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed The EPA attempted to force us in the Fairbanks AK area to use oxygenated fuel (MTBE at that time). We saw an increase in consumption of about 3-5% until it got cold. At about -20F consumption increased dramatically. Up about 10-15% and got even worse as the temps dropped. At -40 or colder the fuel consumption increase was around 35-50% varying with different vehicles. There were also some health issues noted and our governor called "foul" and told the EPA that we would not use MTBE laced gasoline effective immediately. All service stations were informed of the decision and the oxygenated fuel (with MTBE) was a thing of the past. They were allowed to sell that fuel that they had on hand but no more. Dave D >> I don't know if this is what you mean, but horsepower will suffer, and >> fuel mileage will suffer. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ed I would invite you to come and drive my truck. There is a very noticeable power loss with E85. It's like night and day. Spdloader >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 > liter? I have an '07 F150 FX4 with the FFV 5.4 liter engine. The only adverse effect seems to be fuel consumption. I get about 2 MPG less when using E85 compared to regular unleaded. I do not notice any decrease in power and it seems to run smoother on E85. I have a Ranger V6 Flex Fuel and have a similar experience. I picked up some ethanol in PA (H. C. Rinear Station) at $2.50/gallon. They said some vehicles do worse on E-85 with regard to MPG and some are better - depends on tuning (I think compression as well). The truck ran smoother at idle, still had the same power, and MPG dropped from 22 to 21 on a trip back to Virginia. In Virginia I pay $3.07 per gallon and it does not run as well as the PA ethanol. Mileage on the last tank was 18, but a lot of around town driving. I have a long trip scheduled in June and will run out the tank at freeway speeds and see what the VA ethanol will do. I am suspecting that there are variations in production of the fuel - would be interested if anyone has any information on this. If there were more ethanol stations, ethanol cars could be built with high compression engines to take advantage of the 105% octane ratings of the ethanol - gas engines cannot handle this high compression on 8 7 octane fuel. An earlier poster had a good point on the overall efficiency of ethanol production (energy used to convert corn to alcohol + Govt subsidies). Similarly, what does it cost to refine oil to gas. Better yet, what does it take to generate the electricity used to charge an electric car. I think there is some interesting work to be done regarding energy policy. >>I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher >> level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > compared to regular unleaded. I do not notice any decrease in power and it > seems to run smoother on E85. > Better yet, what does it take to generate the electricity used to > charge an electric car. The advantage of electic cars is that they do not have an idling motor at stop lights. You can also shift the pollution output to a power plant outside the city where you live and the car is no longer putting out pollution in the city. There are additional costs to using energy besides just the cost of production. >> Better yet, what does it take to generate the electricity used to >> charge an electric car. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are additional costs to using energy besides just the cost of > production. There is also the outside chance that the electricity that you used to charge the vehicle was provided by a non-polluting source (geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, etc.) Ethanol has less energy than gasoline, so it will deliver lower fuel mileage. >I just purchased a 2008 F150 with 85 Ethanol option. Does the higher > level of Ethanol have any adverse effect on the performance of the 5.4 > liter?
|
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.