GenVibe - Community for Pontiac Vibe Enthusiasts

Interesting test results. It actually COSTS MORE to run the "cheaper" ethanol.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85 ... 96&msite=w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...but, it's MORE costly in the end as the excessive alcohol eventually "eats" the fuel system up.

Not to start anything but a lot of people don't really do there research on e 85. How did they fill the tank and come up with different gallons on each fill. Flex fuel vehicles are not designed to run e 85 optimally they just run it but have to run straight gas as well there for they don't run higher compression. One thing to consider e 85 is 105 to 108 octane, do the math against premium. Apples to apples, e 95 is better suited for guys performance orientated or for a engine built to only burn it.

I have seen plenty of articles done correctly showing e 85 as the better fuel because it was done correctly not by sulking the gass out. Keep in mind that the tahoe senses the percentage of alcohol in the tank it would need to be dropped and cleaned out to be an accurate test.

E 85 eats o rings because the card people choose to run it on aren't designed to run on it and they don't replace key components.

I have a 65 galaxie that I intend on changing to e 85 for several reasons
1 it's American fuel for my American car
2 I would pick up close to 20 horse on it
3 it burns cleaner

Dollar for dollar horse for horse you can't buy a gain in power that cheap any other way.

Please do your research and then make a decision, Edmunds is not a good source. I agree that a flex fuel vehicle will not utilize it the way it should be but look at the guys boosting engines, look at the cities where they have changed squad cars to e 85 and came back and said it only took 20k miles to break even keep in mind that squad cars idle for a lot of hours.

"sulking the gass out"
Wait, what, huh?!?!?!?!?
I read your post 3 or 4 times and can't make heads or tails of it.
Probably just me.

Corey Gonzales put the Tahoe on a lift, disconnected the fuel hose and siphoned the gas out

And don't forget, if we use enough E85 we can use up all the corn and starve to death. Dead people don't drive cars so it's good for the planet to use E85.

Sorry I must have fat fingured it my phone likes to auto correct for me

E85 is a mistake. No savings and No better for the Environment. It's a total fail!

Salsa Guy wrote:E85 is a mistake. No savings and No better for the Environment. It's a total fail!

Short, to the point and correct.

So because it sucks in a flex fuel car it's a bad idea?
That's like saying diesel and propane suck in a gas engine, point being flex fuel cars are not designed correctly to take full advantage of e 85.
You need to think of it as a clean burning race fuel or cheap race fuel.

There are places in the US where it is more cost effective to run E85, even with the poor mileage. For the big GM Trucks and SUV's it becomes more cost effective when E85 is about 30% cheaper than regular gas.

I'd test this out myself but there are only 2 E85 stations in all of Canada.... Both somewhere near Toronto...

I just did an essay on this very topic, and e85 is a horrible idea. We subsidize the corn growers/e-85 producers through taxes (you pay them to make it even if you don't use it). Then, around 40% of our feed corn goes to producing the ethanol, raising the cost to feed our livestock, in turn raising the cost of food. Therefore, you pay more for ethanol even if you never use a drop of it.
Pure gasoline, pulled from domestic wells, increases tax revenue through jobs, local businesses, and refinery growth. We now produce more oil and export to other countries more than we import.
Finally, with cars being so darn efficient, the fuel blenders cannot reach the mandated usage requirements and are now pushing to make e15 and higher the market standard, even though car manufacturers state that higher than e10 on non flex-fuel vehicles is damaging.

Not to mention that it actually uses more energy to produce E85 than you get when you burn it in an internal combustion engine. This is after you factor in farm costs(tractor burning diesel), transportation (truck burning diesel), processing and transportation again to the pumps (truck burning diesel).

Here is another kick to the balls: we are having high prices and low supply of propane that is used to heat homes in rural areas this winter - one of the coldest winters in a long time. Partly to blame was the high use of propane last fall to dry corn...

^^^Truth

E85 is your Congressman's Sloppy Wet kiss for monsanto and big farm interests!

Chiadog wrote:E85 is your Congressman's Sloppy Wet kiss for monsanto and big farm interests!

Google Congressman Charles Grassley R-IA and EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Chuckie, his son Robin and grandson Pat (an Iowa state representative being groomed for grandpa's Washington job) have taken over a Million Dollars from the government. Chuckie HATES government hand outs. Well, not ALL of them.

Bumping this topic to throw in some info via Ford.

Stoichiometric air/fuel mixture for pure gasoline: 14.7 units air : 1 unit of fuel
Stoichiometric air/fuel mix for E85: 9.8 units air : 1 unit fuel

Upsides of ethanol: reduced emissions, requires less air (LOL because that's the limiting reagent), combusts better and thus burns more cleanly, creates more power (yes, this is straight from Ford's training program), has an octane of about 96 in E85, can be used to raise octane level more cheaply.

Downsides to E85: requires special materials that resist ethanol, is less efficient than gas due to the 9.8:1 ratio, can cost more, subsidizing corn is stupid.

"creates more power"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Alcohol has FEWER btu's per volume than gasoline.
Ford is saying that 3 firecrackers have more power than 3 sticks of dynamite.
A brain damaged store mannequin would know better than that.

"The air-fuel ratio (9.8:1) required by ethanol means that while each molecule contains less heat, there are more vapor molecules.
This chemical difference produces slightly more power for each stroke of the piston than with unleaded gasoline.
However, due to the lower energy density of ethanol, vehicles running on ethanol get fewer miles per gallon than vehicles operating on unleaded gasoline."

lannvouivre wrote:"The air-fuel ratio (9.8:1) required by ethanol means that while each molecule contains less heat, there are more vapor molecules.
This chemical difference produces slightly more power for each stroke of the piston than with unleaded gasoline.
However, due to the lower energy density of ethanol, vehicles running on ethanol get fewer miles per gallon than vehicles operating on unleaded gasoline."

"more power for each stroke" but "fewer miles per gallon ".
I think you have been mixing alcohol with what it was intended to be mixed with, water, Coke or 7-Up.

Just because I accept that Ford probably knows what they're talking about?

E85 uses 9.8 parts air to 1 part fuel, while pure gas uses 17.4 parts air to 1 part fuel. That's why you have to use more fuel.

Also, heat value doesn't necessarily translate to power. I'm guessing they say it produces more power because it cools the intake charge better and resists detonation much better than pure gas, so a modern engine can advance timing further. ( http://www.speedhunters.com/2015/04/eve ... t-ethanol/ )

Of course, if you are confident that you can explain why Ford is wrong, I would be happy to read your thoughts.

Mandated ethanol usage means most gasoline will have 10% ethanol - It's all feel good politics. Most of us cannot even find 100% gasoline. Next thing you know the govt will mandate a certain amount of corn oil to be added to butter - and then let them still call it "butter". Then they will be adding soy protein to milk and still call it milk. EPA mpg numbers are based on 100% gasoline but you can't buy it? How crazy is that? Just give the damn corn farmers some money and let the rest of us have the freedom to buy the gasoline we want.

jake75 wrote:Mandated ethanol usage means most gasoline will have 10% ethanol - It's all feel good politics. Most of us cannot even find 100% gasoline. Next thing you know the govt will mandate a certain amount of corn oil to be added to butter - and then let them still call it "butter". Then they will be adding soy protein to milk and still call it milk. EPA mpg numbers are based on 100% gasoline but you can't buy it? How crazy is that? Just give the damn corn farmers some money and let the rest of us have the freedom to buy the gasoline we want.

Check this out:
https://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?s=y ... =&stab2=AL
Robin Grassley is Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley's son. Pat is his nephew. Pat is also in the Iowa legislature, being groomed to be appointed to replace Chuck by Governer Bumsted when Chuck dies.