E85 advantages?
- Thread starter gula187
- Start date
- Status
Famous Indy crasher Patrick Bedard spilled the beans on E85 in 2006
It's not like the dishonest media or government will tell us the REAL reason we have E85. Money quotes were the last paragraph of a 7 page article so its no surprise no one read it/knows it.
Ethanol Promises
Farm-raising our own energy independence: Could it happen?
No Surprise: E85 Is a Bummer in Fuel Economy
We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.
We tested acceleration using both fuels and our standard procedures, then we measured fuel economy at steady speeds of 30, 50, and 70 mph around a 2.5-mile oval test track, three runs at each speed that were averaged to produce the numbers you see in the accompanying charts. The fuel-economy results were calculated using the vehicle's onboard computer.
We began the test with the Tahoe running on E85 fuel and later drove the SUV until its tank was as empty as we dared, and in that way we were able to flush the tank of almost all the ethanol. Then we refilled the tank with regular gasoline and repeated our procedures. All testing was done in two-wheel-drive mode. The results are shown here.
Differences in acceleration times were insignificant (although GM says E85 improves horsepower by as much as three percent). On the downside, the fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA's numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.
Flex Fuel's Big Pay-off
With fewer than 600 stations selling E85 fuel in 37 states, why have GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler been cranking out these flex-fuel vehicles by the millions?
The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.
The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.
Calculating backward from our test Tahoe's window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe's CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM's average. What's that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That's not chump change, even for the auto giant. — Dave VanderWerp
It's not like the dishonest media or government will tell us the REAL reason we have E85. Money quotes were the last paragraph of a 7 page article so its no surprise no one read it/knows it.
Ethanol Promises
Farm-raising our own energy independence: Could it happen?
- Jul 2006
- By PATRICK BEDARD
No Surprise: E85 Is a Bummer in Fuel Economy
We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.
We tested acceleration using both fuels and our standard procedures, then we measured fuel economy at steady speeds of 30, 50, and 70 mph around a 2.5-mile oval test track, three runs at each speed that were averaged to produce the numbers you see in the accompanying charts. The fuel-economy results were calculated using the vehicle's onboard computer.
We began the test with the Tahoe running on E85 fuel and later drove the SUV until its tank was as empty as we dared, and in that way we were able to flush the tank of almost all the ethanol. Then we refilled the tank with regular gasoline and repeated our procedures. All testing was done in two-wheel-drive mode. The results are shown here.
Differences in acceleration times were insignificant (although GM says E85 improves horsepower by as much as three percent). On the downside, the fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA's numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.
Flex Fuel's Big Pay-off
With fewer than 600 stations selling E85 fuel in 37 states, why have GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler been cranking out these flex-fuel vehicles by the millions?
The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.
The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.
Calculating backward from our test Tahoe's window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe's CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM's average. What's that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That's not chump change, even for the auto giant. — Dave VanderWerp
I did but like many I don't have much faith in Wikipedia. But I did find a list and there are a number of cars which used the E85 in previous years but no longer use E85. One example is the 3.6L Avenger which stopped using E85 after 2015
Famous Indy crasher Patrick Bedard spilled the beans on E85 in 2006
It's not like the dishonest media or government will tell us the REAL reason we have E85. Money quotes were the last paragraph of a 7 page article so its no surprise no one read it/knows it.
Ethanol Promises
Farm-raising our own energy independence: Could it happen?
- Jul 2006
- By PATRICK BEDARD
No Surprise: E85 Is a Bummer in Fuel Economy
We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.
We tested acceleration using both fuels and our standard procedures, then we measured fuel economy at steady speeds of 30, 50, and 70 mph around a 2.5-mile oval test track, three runs at each speed that were averaged to produce the numbers you see in the accompanying charts. The fuel-economy results were calculated using the vehicle's onboard computer.
We began the test with the Tahoe running on E85 fuel and later drove the SUV until its tank was as empty as we dared, and in that way we were able to flush the tank of almost all the ethanol. Then we refilled the tank with regular gasoline and repeated our procedures. All testing was done in two-wheel-drive mode. The results are shown here.
Differences in acceleration times were insignificant (although GM says E85 improves horsepower by as much as three percent). On the downside, the fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA's numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.
Flex Fuel's Big Pay-off
With fewer than 600 stations selling E85 fuel in 37 states, why have GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler been cranking out these flex-fuel vehicles by the millions?
The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.
The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.
Calculating backward from our test Tahoe's window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe's CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM's average. What's that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That's not chump change, even for the auto giant. — Dave VanderWerp
There is a member on this forum who has a Tahoe of Suburban (I can't remember which one) that runs on E85. He said that not only did his mpg went down about 30% but he said it felt like he was dragging a parachute behind the vehicle
Thats odd, when i run it in my Ram i drives the same just less MPG's. In my CTS-V when i run e70 i can for sure tell and feel the added power and my time slips would agree.
Soooo let me see if I'm getting this straight:
For economy: It's cheap to buy --> but hard to find, reduces range, and is wasteful to produce?
For performance: It burns cooler yet works better than some high-octane fuels --> but is overkill for anything short of full-race engines?
For emergencies: Carry more with you in a can, have a separate EFI tune on-the-fly for regular gas, or swap jets on the side of the road.
Sounds neat but also circumstantial. Sounds good for a dedicated drag car, maybe a dedicated autocross car, but maybe not a track day car or a commuter depending on distance and availability. The reduced range/operating time is the only thing I don't like the sound of. I'd imagine having to buy it more often returns it to its traditional equivalent in terms of value. And I feel that with a mild-to-moderate driver car any unexpected detour on a trip would become nerve racking.
For economy: It's cheap to buy --> but hard to find, reduces range, and is wasteful to produce?
For performance: It burns cooler yet works better than some high-octane fuels --> but is overkill for anything short of full-race engines?
For emergencies: Carry more with you in a can, have a separate EFI tune on-the-fly for regular gas, or swap jets on the side of the road.
Sounds neat but also circumstantial. Sounds good for a dedicated drag car, maybe a dedicated autocross car, but maybe not a track day car or a commuter depending on distance and availability. The reduced range/operating time is the only thing I don't like the sound of. I'd imagine having to buy it more often returns it to its traditional equivalent in terms of value. And I feel that with a mild-to-moderate driver car any unexpected detour on a trip would become nerve racking.
Were your CTSV or ATS Factory Flex Fuel? My wife's Twin Turbo Eco boost Lincoln isn't an FFV, either. Stupid.
This why I think E85 is such a scam. The Vehicles that should be Factory E85 aren't, and vehicles that shouldn't be, like large trucks, are.
I said over 10 years ago, E85 will never work without massive government subsidies, because cars really ONLY need high octane for acceleration. Steady state cruising, most cars are fine with 87 octane. A 4-6 gallon "on Demand" tank of E85 that is sprayed at high boost would give ALL of the benefits of E85, with none of the drawbacks like horrible gas mileage.
But E85 is about government handouts, not a cleaner environment or higher gas mileage or better cars.
No my CTS-V and my Wifes ATS is not a FFV from the factory. Now the Flex Fuel sensor i use on my V is a factory sensor lol. But yes i agree. The cars like my V or the new Z06 and C6 ZR1 etc should have been flex fuel from the get go. Always power to be had with E85 and forced induction.
- Status
