E-85 Not worth the effort!!

[SvilleKid]

So.....

My wife's vehicle is a 2008 F150 Supercrew 4x4 Kings Ranch. Nice ride. And, with her driving (as opposed to my lead foot), she usually gets 18 to 18.5 mpg on the interstate (with the 5.4 Liter V8!). The truck is a flex-fuel, capable of running E85 fuel. She hasn't run it in the past because it's not available locally. She ran across a station in Knoxville (Pilot) that sells it, at a price that was about $0.50 cheaper per gallon. That was about 12% cheaper than regular gas. So, on the way home last week, we filled it up for noticeably less than usual. Great!!!

Or, so we thought. Never having used it before, I assumed that E-85 was a fairly efficient fuel. I guess I get what I deserve for making an assumption!!!! With a full tank of E-85, we headed back to B'ham. Imagine my surprise when I look down at the mpg read-out, and notice that the normal 18.2 mpg reading NOW reads 14.3 mpg!! That's better than 22% WORSE gas mileage for a savings of less than 12%!!!!

That's NOT what I expected!!!! It's cheaper mile for mile to run regular gasoline than E85. Guess I should have done some homework first! Live and learn!

[MiamiE]

It's a waste of money! I tried it in my truck at first as well. I managed like 10 mpg!

[Silound]

E-85 wasn't really designed for high power high volume engines. It has something like 30% less energy potential per unit of volume than gasoline (which places it some 60% behind diesel).

Where E-85 lends itself favorably was the idea that it could be produced locally in agricultural areas which limited the transportation costs, as well as used in smaller lightweight vehicles that need less power (as opposed to a truck).

[icehog3]

My truck is E85 compatible, I bought it in 2006. Did the math, at them time seemed like gas was 10% cheaper and gas mileage was 20% less. Guess I am just not rich enough to go green. :2

[SvilleKid]

My truck is E85 compatible, I bought it in 2006. Did the math, at them time seemed like gas was 10% cheaper and gas mileage was 20% less. Guess I am just not rich enough to go green. :2

After checking into E85 after the mileage fiasco, I find that it is about 25% less efficient in just about every application. Not only that, but it isn't really that "green". In independent testing, on a 1000 mile trip, it ended up producing carbon based emissions just like gasoline, at a rate less than one-half of one percent different than gasoline produced over the same exact route.

So, I suddenly fail to see the benefit of E85! Same old smoke and mirrors??

[emopunker2004]

the more you read, you'll see that there is no benifit. plus the corn used to make ethanol takes up land that could be used to produce food corn. governmental subsidies is the name of the game. oh, it also takes more energy to make it than the ethanol itself produces.

[forgop]

Kinda the same reason I fill up with 92 octane now. Sure, I pay 5% more per gallon, but yield 15-20% more mpg. Never trust those readings though. Always go by miles actually driven and gallons put back in.

[Stephen]

E-85 wasn't really designed for high power high volume engines. It has something like 30% less energy potential per unit of volume than gasoline (which places it some 60% behind diesel).

Where E-85 lends itself favorably was the idea that it could be produced locally in agricultural areas which limited the transportation costs, as well as used in smaller lightweight vehicles that need less power (as opposed to a truck).

the more you read, you'll see that there is no benifit. plus the corn used to make ethanol takes up land that could be used to produce food corn. governmental subsidies is the name of the game. oh, it also takes more energy to make it than the ethanol itself produces.
Good stuff here.

[replicant_argent]

Funny how that whole "green" thing works, isn't it.
I heard a guy talking about "8 mile per gallon SUVS" the other day. I believe he is a clueless ar@ehole that hasn't pumped his own gas or written a personal check for it for a few years, though.

[fhrblig]

At my work we run some Ford vans that are flex fuel capable, so we decided to try it for a couple of weeks. They got about 20-30% less mpg than on gasoline, but there seemed to be a bit of an increase in available power from the throttle. Problem is, the only station near the yard that sells it is the only station that sells it for nearly the same price as gas. There are several in town that are cheaper than that, but not 30% cheaper. Until that happens, we ain't using it.

I will say the stuff smells to me like if Corn Pops made a liquor!
Posted via Mobile Device

[NCRadioMan]

Yep, another government perpetuated racket that does nothing good for the consumer. Shocking!

[emopunker2004]

Yep, another government perpetuated racket that does nothing good for the consumer. Shocking!

:tu

[captain53]

E-85 is just one more scam. Corn Farmers are cleaning house with it while food crops take the sidelines. Just a little note of interest the Corn that is grown for E-85 production is a hybrid variety for just that purpose and has little if any food value.

[Stevez]

As a new Toyota Tundra owner with Flex Fuel, I say ditto to everything here. E85 is a scam and not worth it in any way. Not sure that there is any harm in having it, but really wish I had looked into it in more detail before I bought it. Guess it doesn't hurt, but there certainly is no benefit whatsoever.

[Wanger]

E-85 is just one more scam. Corn Farmers are cleaning house with it while food crops take the sidelines. Just a little note of interest the Corn that is grown for E-85 production is a hybrid variety for just that purpose and has little if any food value.

Farmers gotta make money, too. With the oil companies cleaning house like they do, do you blame them?

One of the "selling points" is that it purportedly reduces dependency on foreign oil, as it is produced domestically.

:2

[Stephen]

Farmers gotta make money, too. With the oil companies cleaning house like they do, do you blame them?

One of the "selling points" is that it purportedly reduces dependency on foreign oil, as it is produced domestically.

:2
Why do farmers roll the bills of their ballcaps so tight?

So their cap doesn't get knocked off sticking their head in the mailbox looking for the check from the government.

It's mind-boggling how much the farming industry is subsidized in the United States and corn by far is the biggest benefactor.

[loki]

corn farmers can get bent, it's their fault i have to work to find soda with cane sugar vs hfcs....

[hotreds]

Yep, another government perpetuated racket that does nothing good for the consumer. Shocking!

I like the way you think, brother! Corn should be used for food, not fuel!

[hotreds]

Why do farmers roll the bills of their ballcaps so tight?

So their cap doesn't get knocked off sticking their head in the mailbox looking for the check from the government.

It's mind-boggling how much the farming industry is subsidized in the United States and corn by far is the biggest benefactor.



Actually, most of the govt $$ go to big agri-businesses and "gentleman" farmers like Ted Turner. Another reason to do away with all farm subsidies!

[treatneggy]

Farmers gotta make money, too. With the oil companies cleaning house like they do, do you blame them?

One of the "selling points" is that it purportedly reduces dependency on foreign oil, as it is produced domestically.

:2

Unfortunately, it takes foreign oil to power the tractors and trucks to plant, harvest and then transport the corn to the processing plants. How much diesel gets burned for each gallon of ethanol that's produced?

[SvilleKid]

Unfortunately, it takes foreign oil to power the tractors and trucks to plant, harvest and then transport the corn to the processing plants. How much diesel gets burned for each gallon of ethanol that's produced?

Oh, it's already a known fact that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of E85 than that gallon of E-85 reproduces! That kind of circle logic escapes me.

However, my main post to start this thread was to point out the difference in fuel economy between E-85 and gasoline, and how it was not cost effective to run E-85 because the fuel economy was much different than the price difference. And, to kick myself for NOT having done the homework before hand to discover that. By posting the thread, I hope to alert others to that situation, so they won't make the same mistake I made.

I don't think we are stepping on anyone's toes by expanding the thread, but let's keep it civil and make sure we don't stray into anything political that might get the thread axed. Thanks for the comments so far.

[Stephen]

Actually, most of the govt $$ go to big agri-businesses and "gentleman" farmers like Ted Turner. Another reason to do away with all farm subsidies!
The way that farm subsidies are handled in this country is completely upside down. It'd be akin to Warren Buffet getting food stamps.

[hotreds]

The way that farm subsidies are handled in this country is completely upside down. It'd be akin to Warren Buffet getting food stamps.

Don't give the govt any ideas!

[icehog3]

Keep it non-political please, Friends. ;)

[Stephen]

Keep it non-political please, Friends. ;)
Mea culpa el capitan, mea culpa...;s

[aich75013]

I once read that you need to fill the tank a few times with E85 to give the cars computer some type to get used to that type of fuel. Supposedly after a few fill-ups the computer would know the correct way to properly burn the fuel more efficiently. Not sure if any of that is true, but just like a bunch of you, I filled my tank once with E85 and noticed a significant decrease in fuel economy. I didn't bother trying to find out if that was true or not. It was in an article I read online. And we all know how trustworthy internet articles are.
Posted via Mobile Device