E85

[The_King48]

Does anybody run e85? I have a flex fuel truck and I am thinking about running this fuel.. What type of MPG do get while using e85???

[Hafnutz]

I tried it once. Mileage dropped off about 30-40%. In the owners manual it says you need to mix it with gas to get it to start in cold weather. Less power, less mileage, harder starting in cold weather, do the math and there is no savings, might even cost more to use than gas...You can have my share.

[wplatehunter]

When I bought my truck they told me not to even waste my time with it. They said the mileage was about half, so I have never used it.

[harvey lee]

When one figures the loss in mileage versus what you save on a gallon of gas, if the E85 is about .75 less or more, then it may be worth it to use it.

[Matt C]

I run it in my Tahoe every so often. I get 14mpg with regular gas, and about 12 with e85. There is no issue with 'cold starting'.

Its a higher octane...

If towing the boat, my gas mileage drops to about 8, so I do not use it if I am going to be towing the boat.

So in the long run it is cheaper.

Down-fall, its not good on the fuel filters and such, so running it every tank I do not think is a wise idea.

[zent]

I don't think it is worth it when you add in the .50 cent per gallon subsidy I already pay as a taxpayer in the State of Minnesota.

[luckydave]

In my 2009 Silverado I get about 17% less mileage with E85. So if the E85 is more than 17% cheaper I use it--this is usually true. The truck's engine and fuel system is designed for it and I have not had any issues with maintenance or hard starting at all. Consumer Report tests show more power and quicker acceleration with E85. I know there is a gov't subsidy now, but hopefully they'll find a better raw material other than corn. It does help out the US farmers however and lessens our dependence on foreign oil.

[hydro]

On the plus side, if the E-85 is actually 85% ethanol (it is not necessarily so) it would have an octane of 105. If you build an engine with high enough compression to take advantage of that, you can make some pretty impressive horsepower. Burning it in your 9:1 flex fuel vehicle will not give you that advantage.

On the minus side, look into how much petrochemical it takes to grow the corn, refine the ethanol into a fuel, and distribute the final product. Is it really that good for the environment? Look into it if you are interested. And finally, for it to be a cost effective alternative, it would need to cost at least 30% less at the pump due to the lower MPG factor.

[CJH]

As mentioned above, if you can get it 15-20% less than gas, it about breaks even with more horsepower. However you don't want to use it every tank, refer to your manual for the intervals. Its pretty corrosive stuff.

Ford is working on an engine that uses E85 as a secondary fuel for added performance when needed. IE: It shoots some into the engine under heavy load. The engine computer will then adjust everything to maximize the horsepower.

[Whoaru99]

Just got a brand spanking new truck that has the flex fuel setup. I'm going to try a tank or two of E85 just to see how it works out.

[hydro]

I think you may have misunderstood my compression statement. In order to maximize the power capability of E-85, the engine needs to be BUILT with enough static compression, ideally in the 12:1 to 14:1 range. You cannot burn gasoline at that compression, at least nothing short of something like VP racing fuel, and certainly nothing from the pump. In addition, making power uses more fuel so mileage will go away when trying to do this.

With those limitations, a production vehicle engine burning E-85 will inherently be less efficient, unless it could increase the effective compression ratio. There is one way to do that, and it is by using boost. If the engine management system can control a turbo or supercharger to vary the boost when burning the E-85, then the effective compression, the amount of fuel/air charge, and timing can be maximized. Lots of possibilities here!

[dfv87]

Could you repeat the part about the thing in the middle of what you said right before the other thing when you said something I didn't follow... JK Hydro

I use e85 occasionally in suburban and notice very little difference other than 4-6 MPG. 16-18 down to 12-14. It is nice not to have to run up a huge number to fill the tank... you just do it more often... I don't drive long distances so MPG is not one of my main concerns.

[Scott K]

As what was stated, you get about 15-20% less MPG, so if you can buy it at the pump for 15-20% less you brake even. But I dissagree with switching back and forth, if you are using OE fuel filters, or even a quality filter, you shouldnet have any issues, and the rest of the fuel system is desiegned to run on e85, so it shouldnt effect the rest of the system. Dont switch back and forth between the fuels, it takes a good tank before your computer adjusts fully from one fuel to the other, so all you will do is just get bad economy. Run 4-5 straight tanks in it, and see if you like it, if you do stick with it, if you dont, switch back.

[boatfixer]

Thats what I did 4w. I found it was a break even situation for me. I will not use it however based on the reasons Hydro listed being that it takes so many more btu's to produce 1 gallon of the stuff than can be produced by 1 gallon of the stuff. Besides, if it were so good, the government wouldnt have to feed it.

[slammer]

My 07 Chevy pickup: 350 miles per tank with gas(average)

200 miles per tank with E85(average

E85 is only .40 less in my area right now and to me its not worth it. Noticably less power when pulling anything with E85. A friend figured out it would have to be $1.05 gallon less than gas to make it worth using all the time.

[BLACKJACK]

On the minus side, look into how much petrochemical it takes to grow the corn, refine the ethanol into a fuel, and distribute the final product. Is it really that good for the environment? Look into it if you are interested.

Another big minus is all the grasslands that are getting converted to crops to meet the ethanol demand. Where we pheasant hunt in SoDak, SW of Aberdeen, 10 years ago you had to search to find a corn field, now there are sections full of corn!! If you're a pheasant hunter, E85 is not your friend!!

[ccarlson]

Exactly what Blackjack said.

Besides not reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it costs all of us money in govt. subisidies and it is taking a huge toll on wildlife habitat.

ccarlson

[fishing tech]

If you use it alot you will be replacing burnt valves by 100k miles.

[knoppers]

I have a new ford truck that has the flex fuel. I have not used any E85 so far, but after my milage has dropped this winter when they switched to winter grade gas, I was thinking of giving it a try. I was getting 18-22 MPG last summer, now I am getting 13.5, so I was thinking maybe the E85 was the thing to run now. I know my HP increases from 310 to 320 on E85, but thats not much.

[knoppers]

If you use it alot you will be replacing burnt valves by 100k miles.

my manual says you should run a tank of regular gas every now and then, thats probally why.

[Sonicrunch]

If you use it alot you will be replacing burnt valves by 100k miles.

can you back up this statement? I'm just curious. I've never heard this before, and am a little surprised.

[deadeye]

IDK. There are plenty of people who are running it in tuned performance vehicles and love it. You are able to up the boost a lot and the result is more power. You lessen the chance of knock alot. EGT's are a great indicator of that. I have been kicking around either switching to e85 or doing methanol injection in my talon to allow more boost this summer. So far it looks like e-85 is the way to go. Lots of cars are putting down great power with e85.(I cant wait to see what a e85 tuned SHO can do )

If the vehicle is tuned specifically for it, its a great fuel. Fuel mileage will suffer a little bit, not the 20% some are claiming though.

IDK why they aren't running a fuel content sensor in flex fuel vehicles to help the computer respond to changes more proactively. They aren't that expensive and would increase the efficiency quite a bit. A major problem with e-85 is changes in ratings from station to station. That is where a lot of the problems come from. I guess it goes to show that production could learn a few things from the performance market.

I won't get into the politics of e-85 as thats another game but it is a foot in the door of trying alternatives to petrol. It may or may not be a fail but its a step in the right direction. There is always room for improvement with everything.

[Scott K]

To totally benefit from the extra octane from ethanol , you would need higher compression, in which then you wouldnt be able to use regular gas anymore. If the manufacturers set the engine to only run on ethanol, you would get a lot better economy, and a lot more hp.

[spearchucker]

I don't think it is worth it when you add in the .50 cent per gallon subsidy I already pay as a taxpayer in the State of Minnesota.

That makes it more worth it if you are capable of burning it. I can't burn it and I still pay the tax subsidy so I am getting hosed worse.

[spearchucker]

If you use it alot you will be replacing burnt valves by 100k miles.

Why would it burn your valves? Makes no sense. These engines aren't made to 1965 standards that require leaded fuel.