E85 Fuel!

[Deleted User]

So then folks, what about this e85 fuel thing going around. I am in the Dallas Texas area and the local krogers carry it. Claims up to 105 octane and average 20 cents less then regular unleaded. Anyone have any thoughts on this alternative fuel or experience with it? I believe the newer vehicles out there support this type of fuel.

Halen

dorokusai

I have an E85 vehicle but the station isn't very close, so I wouldn't call it convenient yet. I'm not aware of that price difference but might have to look into it.

dkg999

About $.20 to $.40 cents difference depending on whether your in IA or IL. I use it in my truck during the summer. I lose about 2 mpg when running it. It's a feel good measure on my part, it's not the answer to our energy problems.

wodom1

It's only about 70% as efficient as gasoline. I had a rental truck with a flex-fuel engine and the mileage went way down when using E85.

Polkitup2

Exactly you pay less per gallon but get worse mileage.

McLoki

In addition to a 20%-30% drop in gas mileage, it is also much harder on your vehicle and forces you to use the "severe service" maint. schedule for your vehicle.

Personally - if it was 2/3 the cost of regular gas - I would go for it. (that would require about $1.10 cheaper round here now a days) Based on a $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon savings, just not worth it at all.

Michael

nikolas812

I was wondering about the E85 my self. From what I have read in this thread it all makes perfect sense.

I am assuming the E stands for Ethanol. Which is alcohol. Correct?

If so. The reason you would be losing gas mileage would be cause it is so much thinner then regular gasoline. You have to use a lot more to create the same volume as gasoline. I don't see where the consumer would save money going this route but I could see where it would be better for the environment. Alcohol burns much cleaner than regular gasoline.

We was thinking of switching to Alcohol for the race car because it was almost half the price of race gas. But after we found out you would be using twice as much it didn't make sense to switch.

sophie

nikolas812 wrote: »

The reason you would be losing gas mileage would be cause it is so much thinner then regular gasoline. You have to use a lot more to create the same volume as gasoline.

i think you meant that it is thinner/lighter so you need to use more of it to get the same weight.

Payton

nikolas812

sophie wrote: »

i think you meant that it is thinner/lighter so you need to use more of it to get the same weight.

Payton

I thought thats what I said??

mhardy6647

It's not just the density of the fuel per se, but the energy content. Gasoline is (to a good approximation) pure hydrocarbon (CH3(CH2)nCH3, so to speak), so the 'latent' content of energy to be released by combustion (i.e., reaction with oxygen to form CO2 and H2O) is very high. Ethanol is already partially oxygenated, so to speak (CH3CH2OH), so there's less energy to be extracted by combustion.

Kerosene/Diesel fuel/jet fuel is a higher energy fuel than gasoline because it's denser (and the hydrocarbon chain lengths are longer).

petrym

I did a 5,000 mile trial of E10 in our 2001 Town & Country 3.8L-engined minivan and compared it to regular "non-ethanol" gasoline - I got 6% less miles per gallon (18.15 vs. 19.33). So over the trial period I had to buy an extra 15 gallons of E10 (an entire tankful) over the regular gasoline amount to go the same distance. So even though the E10 was (at that time) 8 cents cheaper, I saved $18.50 using regular non-E10 gas over the same distance.

Airplay355

isn't E10 standard stuff? It's in all the gas stations around here...I assumed the E10 was just run of the mill gasoline.

cmy330go

I've had a few friends run it in their vehicles. Once they calculated the fuel mileage vs. the "savings" at the pump, they went back to standard unleaded.

IMO its almost a total waist of time and money.

petrym

Airplay355 wrote: »

isn't E10 standard stuff? It's in all the gas stations around here...I assumed the E10 was just run of the mill gasoline.

We still have non-ethanol gas available in Nebraska. 87 and 91 octane is regular gasoline and the 89 octane has 10% ethanol.

Neskahi

The ethanol is causing many problems in the marine industry. Apparently it loosens old
deposits in fuel tanks, clogging things up. The jury is still out on ethanol, and the source it comes from. That being FOOD[corn] and SUBSIDIZED by our tax dollars. All that I've read
indicates none of these ethanol plants would even be remotely profitable without huge
subsidies. Just a "feel good" energy policy to satisfy the extreme greenies and line the pockets of those in the know.

Neskahi

Not normally political but this one is a no brainer.

mrbigbluelight

Neskahi wrote: »

Not normally political but this one is a no brainer.

I understand your concern about the ethanol being considered political, but because of the fact that there are

MORONS

on both sides of the aisle who are promoting corn-based ethanol, it really isn't political in the "Take-Sides" sense.

If there is one truism in life, if there is one thing that you can rely on as being a set-in-stone and take-it-to-the-bank fact it is this:

CORN-BASED ETHANOL IS A BAD IDEA 6 WAYS TO SUNDAY

venomclan

Neskahi wrote: »

The ethanol is causing many problems in the marine industry. Apparently it loosens old
deposits in fuel tanks, clogging things up. The jury is still out on ethanol, and the source it comes from. That being FOOD[corn] and SUBSIDIZED by our tax dollars. All that I've read
indicates none of these ethanol plants would even be remotely profitable without huge
subsidies. Just a "feel good" energy policy to satisfy the extreme greenies and line the pockets of those in the know.

This is correct. I am in the marine industry and there is currently a lawsuit against the oil companies for not telling boat owners that they switched some of the additives and caused massive engine failures. E85 can work, the problem is that no one wants to pay more, and it is a nightmare with the farm subsidies and all that. Biodiesel is a better solution as algea grows everywhere.
Venom

heiney9

From the little I've read; long term damage can occur if used in an automobile not specifically built to run E-85. Since E-85 has a very high alcohol content it can damage parts in the fuel system which means they *could* wear out sooner.

I don't see the advantage to running E-85 and I wonder how an engine designed to run on 87 octane runs on 105 octane. Sure the ECU can compensate up to a point but that's quite a gap. I would think lower compression engines might have an issue with 105 octane rating.

Again, I would never run it in a car that wasn't approved form the manufacturer so maybe I'm talking out my a** since I haven't looked beyond a couple superficial articles on the subject. I have no interest in running it in my car.

H9

heiney9

This is what I was referring to when I stated E-85 should only be used in an approved E-85 vehicle

E-85 ethanol is used in engines modified to accept higher concentrations of ethanol. Such flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) are designed to run on any mixture of gasoline or ethanol with up to 85% ethanol by volume. There are a few major differences between FFVs and non-FFVs. One is the elimination of bare magnesium, aluminum, and rubber parts in the fuel system. Another is that fuel pumps must be capable of operating with electrically conductive ethanol instead of non-conducting dielectric gasoline fuel are used. Fuel injection control systems have a wider range of pulse widths to inject approximately 40% more fuel. Stainless steel fuel lines, sometimes lined with plastic, and stainless steel fuel tanks in place of terne fuel tanks are used. In some cases, FFVs use acid-neutralizing motor oil. For vehicles with fuel-tank mounted fuel pumps, additional differences to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tank's fill pipe, are also sometimes used.

Also this explains why regular automobiles (not designed specifically for the use of E85) have lower mpg, etc.

One complication is that use of gasoline in an engine with a high enough compression ratio to use E-85 efficiently would likely result in catastrophic failure due to engine detonation, as the octane rating of gasoline is not high enough to withstand the greater compression ratios in use in an engine specifically designed to run on E-85. Use of E-85 in an engine designed specifically for gasoline would result in a loss of the potential efficiency that it is possible to gain with this fuel. Using E-85 in a gasoline engine has the drawback of achieving lower fuel economy as more fuel is needed per unit air (stoichiometric fuel ratio) to run the engine in comparison with gasoline. E-85, 85% Ethanol by volume, also has a lower heating value (units of energy per unit mass) than gasoline leading to a reduction in power output in a gasoline engine. E85 consumes more fuel in flex fuel type vehicles because of its lower stoichiometric fuel ratio and lower heating value. So in order to save money at the pump with a flex fuel vehicle the price of E85 must be much lower than gasoline.

skipf

The only real soultion I see is hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunantly, until a distribution system can be set up, it's just not practicle.

mhardy6647

The only real soultion I see is hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunantly, until a distribution system can be set up, it's just not practicle.

It's hard to get excited about driving around with a tank full of (liquified) hydrogen in my car. Remember the Hindenburg?

Another is that fuel pumps must be capable of operating with electrically conductive ethanol instead of non-conducting dielectric gasoline fuel are used.

Speaking of the Hindenburg... :-O

shack

Supposedly - 220 miles on a charge and the battery lasts for 100,000 miles. Granted this is a $100,000 car...but if they can do it...GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota etc....can do it cost effectively. Use hydrogen and nuclear power to generate electricity and tell the oil cartels to kiss our ****. Clears up some of the air quality issues as well.

Works for me.

zingo

My feelings exactly shack. My issue is that all the vehicles of now-a-days require a specific fuel source; gas, diesel, E85, CNG, propane, hydrogen, etc. That limits the availability of the fuel as well as how much it costs to produce it. However, you can produce electricity in many ways, so the "fuel" for an electric car is not limited to a single source. So in practice, the "fuel" for your electric car comes from solar, nuclear, hydro, coal, or any other source, instead of just from gasoline. Just thinking about it in those terms put it in perspective for me that E85 is just another dead end.

nadams

e85 is worthless. Not only is it more harmful to your engine, it costs more to make than gas, and gets you less mileage. 'til you get done farming, processing, and then burning it, you've introduced a larger "carbon footprint" than if you'd just sucked some black stuff out of the ground and lit it on fire.

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

If there is one truism in life, if there is one thing that you can rely on as being a set-in-stone and take-it-to-the-bank fact it is this:

CORN-BASED ETHANOL IS A BAD IDEA 6 WAYS TO SUNDAY

WHAT??? How could taking a huge chunk of a major source of food, sweeteners, animal feed, alcohol, etc, etc, and using it to produce a gasoline alternative that costs more to make than gas, is less efficient than gas, polutes more than gas...and by doing so increases the price of everything from corn meal, milk and New York Strip steak at a rate faster than the price of gas increases be a bad thing? It's not like a major Midwest drought could effect the supply of that fuel source more than a disruption of a mideast supply source. How could such an idea be bad...cause it is renewable...isn't it...and not really needed for that other stuff...like food? Isn't it?

mrbigbluelight

And petroleum-based fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides are necessary to produce corn, well ....

..... yeah, but if I invest in corn futures, won't I make money ? And won't that be a good thing for ME ?




If not algae based alcohol, at least use something better than corn for production: HEMP.

Airplay355

I think the issue with hydrogen is that hydrogen doesn't exist in the atmosphere all by it's lonesom so the best way to get it is off of large hydrocarbons like oil...I think.

I think I read stripping it off water wasn't an economical way to go.

mhardy6647

Nope, it's made by electrolysis of water:

2H2O -> 2H2 +O2

When you burn it, it goes back again.
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

That's what the Hindenburg did.

Airplay355

I know you can electrolysize water to get hydrogen but whatever I read said that wasn't the best way to go about it and didn't yield the kind of results we'd need to power a nation's cars on hydrogen.

I don't really know if that's true anymore, someone may have found a better way to do it.

[Deleted User]

E85 fuel, it is only to be used with flex fuel engines, and it stops there nothing more to it. The owners of vehicles that does support E85, how do you like it. Several hundred miles testing does not dictate much. Several more months and I will have my own input on it.