Kum n Go Ethanol?
#1
06-19-2008 | 03:10 AM
Kum n Go Ethanol?
Does ethanol 85 work on our cars?
The search function isn't working for me properly, but I have been traveling to the central USA, and noticed something funny, there is the Plus version of gas that is a dollar cheaper than the unleaded gas... 3.39 somewhere in Iowa.. or was it COlorado, not sure, but in Illinois, they have the same deal for about 3.89 in Lincoln. (staying here the night).
ANy confirmation before I give it a try tomorrow afternoon?
The search function isn't working for me properly, but I have been traveling to the central USA, and noticed something funny, there is the Plus version of gas that is a dollar cheaper than the unleaded gas... 3.39 somewhere in Iowa.. or was it COlorado, not sure, but in Illinois, they have the same deal for about 3.89 in Lincoln. (staying here the night).
ANy confirmation before I give it a try tomorrow afternoon?
#4
06-19-2008 | 03:42 AM
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 66
From: Minnesota, Eh?!
E-85 has a much higher ethanol content...and pretty much only vehicles that are "flex fuel" capable should use it. Even if your vehicle can use it, the mpg drops as there is a significant loss of power. But if you can get it for a dollar cheaper/gallon (it's heavily subsidised by the state, IA more so than others if I recall right) it can be worth it.
My brother-in-law in his flex fuel Ford Explorer will use it if its at least 45 cent/gal or so cheaper as the cost difference makes up for loss efficiency. It's cleaner burning though if your vehicle is flex fuel ready. Also if we tow his boat he makes sure to fuel up with regular, as it does lack the same power as regular or premium.
I've heard of people putting 1/2 and 1/2 in their tank. But personally I wouldn't do it...In short it'll work and it shouldn't do any long term harm, there have been some Ethanol proponents that have done it, but with unclear results in terms of performance. Since the Fit isn't programmed or tuned to accept it, I'd wager the mpg loss will be even greater... Be curious if it still starts quickly for ignition
Maybe try it with a gallon or two when you have the tank almost empty and give a short drive around to see how it works before filling up on it.
Just found and interesting article video, oddly enough from my neck of the woods...
My brother-in-law in his flex fuel Ford Explorer will use it if its at least 45 cent/gal or so cheaper as the cost difference makes up for loss efficiency. It's cleaner burning though if your vehicle is flex fuel ready. Also if we tow his boat he makes sure to fuel up with regular, as it does lack the same power as regular or premium.
I've heard of people putting 1/2 and 1/2 in their tank. But personally I wouldn't do it...In short it'll work and it shouldn't do any long term harm, there have been some Ethanol proponents that have done it, but with unclear results in terms of performance. Since the Fit isn't programmed or tuned to accept it, I'd wager the mpg loss will be even greater... Be curious if it still starts quickly for ignition
Maybe try it with a gallon or two when you have the tank almost empty and give a short drive around to see how it works before filling up on it.
Just found and interesting article video, oddly enough from my neck of the woods...
Last edited by StreetUrchin; 06-19-2008 at 03:55 AM. Reason: clarity and movie added
#5
06-19-2008 | 10:33 AM
I wouldn't use it in any combination of gasoline in the Fit.
Check out the info from wiki. The savings in money does not come close to offsetting the reduced economy.
You could also run the risk of damaging everything from the fuel pump and tank, to the fuel lines, to the engine.
Not worth it even if the car was FlexFuel.
Check out the info from wiki. The savings in money does not come close to offsetting the reduced economy.
You could also run the risk of damaging everything from the fuel pump and tank, to the fuel lines, to the engine.
Not worth it even if the car was FlexFuel.
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. 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.[citations needed]
[edit] Comparisons to regular gasoline
Depending on composition and source, E85 has an octane rating of 100 - 105[4] compared to regular gasoline's typical rating of 87 - 93. This allows it to be used in higher compression engines which tend to produce more power per unit of displacement than their gasoline counterparts. Since the reciprocating mass of the engine increases in proportion to the displacement of the engine E85 has a higher potential efficiency for an engine of equal power. One complication is that use of gasoline in an engine with a high enough compression ratio to use E85 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 E85. Use of E85 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 E85 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. E85 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 when the vehicle uses the same fuel/air mixture and compression for both E85 and gasoline because of its lower stoichiometric fuel ratio and lower heating value. European car maker Saab currently produces a flex fuel version of their 9-5 sedan which consumes the same amount of fuel whether running e85 or gasoline[5], though it is not available in the United States. So in order to save money at the pump with current flex fuel vehicles available in the United States the price of E85 must be much lower than gasoline. Currently E85 is about 5-10% less expensive in most areas.[6] More than 20 fueling stations across the Midwest are selling E85 25%-40% cheaper than gasoline.[7] E85 also gets less MPG, at least in flex fuel vehicles. In one test, a Chevy Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle averaged 18 MPG [U.S. gallons] for gasoline, and 13 MPG for E85, or 28% fewer MPG than gasoline. In that test, the cost of gas averaged $3.42, while the cost for E85 averaged $3.09, or 90% the cost of gasoline.[8][9]
[edit] Comparisons to regular gasoline
Depending on composition and source, E85 has an octane rating of 100 - 105[4] compared to regular gasoline's typical rating of 87 - 93. This allows it to be used in higher compression engines which tend to produce more power per unit of displacement than their gasoline counterparts. Since the reciprocating mass of the engine increases in proportion to the displacement of the engine E85 has a higher potential efficiency for an engine of equal power. One complication is that use of gasoline in an engine with a high enough compression ratio to use E85 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 E85. Use of E85 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 E85 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. E85 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 when the vehicle uses the same fuel/air mixture and compression for both E85 and gasoline because of its lower stoichiometric fuel ratio and lower heating value. European car maker Saab currently produces a flex fuel version of their 9-5 sedan which consumes the same amount of fuel whether running e85 or gasoline[5], though it is not available in the United States. So in order to save money at the pump with current flex fuel vehicles available in the United States the price of E85 must be much lower than gasoline. Currently E85 is about 5-10% less expensive in most areas.[6] More than 20 fueling stations across the Midwest are selling E85 25%-40% cheaper than gasoline.[7] E85 also gets less MPG, at least in flex fuel vehicles. In one test, a Chevy Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle averaged 18 MPG [U.S. gallons] for gasoline, and 13 MPG for E85, or 28% fewer MPG than gasoline. In that test, the cost of gas averaged $3.42, while the cost for E85 averaged $3.09, or 90% the cost of gasoline.[8][9]
#6
06-19-2008 | 10:48 AM
even if the car was designed for flex fuel? that makes no sense... I'm disregarding the above post.
I'll try a gallon, if I am low on gas after monday, since I'm on a schedule, I don't know what this will do, and I need to be at the job interview in Chicago tomorrow morning, and another job interview in Glendale IL Monday morning.
Thanks for the input, and that video was nice.
pft, damage to the fuel pump/lines, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong, and the parts looked like new too.
I'll try a gallon, if I am low on gas after monday, since I'm on a schedule, I don't know what this will do, and I need to be at the job interview in Chicago tomorrow morning, and another job interview in Glendale IL Monday morning.
Thanks for the input, and that video was nice.
pft, damage to the fuel pump/lines, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong, and the parts looked like new too.
#7
06-19-2008 | 11:02 AM
What do you mean it doesn't make sense and you are going to ignore me?
Did you even bother to take the time to actually read the article before you just diss me?
Reading must be optional here.
Maybe I can give you a Cliff notes version:
You have to have a FlexFuel car to use E85, otherwise you could blow things up, or at least it could ruin the fuel system entirely.(now did I here or anywhere else say this is set in stone to happen to EVERY vehicle on the planet?)
Fact: If you run E85, you get 28-30+% LESS gas mileage.
Fact: E85 is only about 5-10% cheaper than gasoline.
Fact: For the math impaired, that means any savings at the pump are irrelevant (I know, big word), because your car burns more of it than gasoline.
That means you are losing money and have less power if you run E85.
Please explain to me why your reasoning on the matter is superior to mine, and what would you say to convince me to use E85? What are it's tangible benefits?
Did you even bother to take the time to actually read the article before you just diss me?
Reading must be optional here.
Maybe I can give you a Cliff notes version:
You have to have a FlexFuel car to use E85, otherwise you could blow things up, or at least it could ruin the fuel system entirely.(now did I here or anywhere else say this is set in stone to happen to EVERY vehicle on the planet?)
Fact: If you run E85, you get 28-30+% LESS gas mileage.
Fact: E85 is only about 5-10% cheaper than gasoline.
Fact: For the math impaired, that means any savings at the pump are irrelevant (I know, big word), because your car burns more of it than gasoline.
That means you are losing money and have less power if you run E85.
Please explain to me why your reasoning on the matter is superior to mine, and what would you say to convince me to use E85? What are it's tangible benefits?
#8
06-19-2008 | 11:04 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 253
From: Parma Heights, OH, USA
Don't do it!
In the midwest most pumps are already 10%. This is just under the max 12% that manufacturers plan for. Adding a gallon could push this over this limit. I lived for 10 years just north of Lincoln in Normal, IL and this is the land of corn. We have been using 10% ethanol blend since 1992.
No Honda vehicles are designed for e85. You run the risk of causing major problems with the soft fuel components. Hoses, pump parts, Injector seals, etc...
Check out this link from the National e85 coalition. This lists all vehicles that are e85 ready.
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
In the midwest most pumps are already 10%. This is just under the max 12% that manufacturers plan for. Adding a gallon could push this over this limit. I lived for 10 years just north of Lincoln in Normal, IL and this is the land of corn. We have been using 10% ethanol blend since 1992.
No Honda vehicles are designed for e85. You run the risk of causing major problems with the soft fuel components. Hoses, pump parts, Injector seals, etc...
Check out this link from the National e85 coalition. This lists all vehicles that are e85 ready.
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
#9
06-19-2008 | 11:08 AM
Hey you know what, speaking of videos, I saw one last week where these guys were sitting at a table and popped corn with their cells phones. Wow.
I know that there are a bunch of people who are saying it's a fraud and hoax, people who are engineers and stuff, but, pfftt, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong. You can pop corn with cell phones.
I know that there are a bunch of people who are saying it's a fraud and hoax, people who are engineers and stuff, but, pfftt, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong. You can pop corn with cell phones.
#10
06-19-2008 | 11:09 AM
Don't do it!
In the midwest most pumps are already 10%. This is just under the max 12% that manufacturers plan for. Adding a gallon could push this over this limit. I lived for 10 years just north of Lincoln in Normal, IL and this is the land of corn. We have been using 10% ethanol blend since 1992.
No Honda vehicles are designed for e85. You run the risk of causing major problems with the soft fuel components. Hoses, pump parts, Injector seals, etc...
Check out this link from the National e85 coalition. This lists all vehicles that are e85 ready.
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
In the midwest most pumps are already 10%. This is just under the max 12% that manufacturers plan for. Adding a gallon could push this over this limit. I lived for 10 years just north of Lincoln in Normal, IL and this is the land of corn. We have been using 10% ethanol blend since 1992.
No Honda vehicles are designed for e85. You run the risk of causing major problems with the soft fuel components. Hoses, pump parts, Injector seals, etc...
Check out this link from the National e85 coalition. This lists all vehicles that are e85 ready.
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
#11
06-19-2008 | 11:44 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 253
From: Parma Heights, OH, USA
I have no issue with ethanol. I have been using 10% blend in all vehicles since 1991. I love it because I have had no issues with fuel injectors in three cars all with over 150k miles.
Since I moved to Michigan and live 2 blocks from a marina where I keep my boat, I have seen 3 trailer boats have fiberglass fuel tanks breakdown and lines get mushy from ethanol at that the normal gas pumps have in their fuel. I can't get pump at the road pumps because I don't trailer, I have to get "marine" (higher tax is the only difference) fuel from the fuel docks. There are no dock pumps that have ethanol because of the proven problems.
Besides the solvent issues there is an issue with ethanol holding water and cusing stalling. This isn't an issue with cars as they are not over water for extended periods of time (unless you live in Iowa right now
)My bottom line is this, Use the 10% and have no worries and a nice clean engine. Start adding a higher content and you may have issues. Just because a 2000 Tahoe, that was build long after we started using ethanol in the US, can handle it, doesn't mean that a car made in Japan, that doesn't use any ethanol, can handle it.
If it was built for e85 the National ethanol coalition would have it on their list, along with any other Honda that was ready. There are no Honda vehicles listed.
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
Just my $.02.
#12
06-19-2008 | 11:45 AM
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 48
From: Dallas, TX
Ethanol is a scam
Ethanol is a huge scam financially and environmentally. If I could find pure gas in DFW I would buy it. Every pump around here has 10% ethanol.
The stuff costs more (it's subsidized by our tax money), it can't be piped, and it lowers gas millage. On top of that we make it the least efficient way possible...with corn. It's also one of the major reasons food prices are so high and still rising.
It also ruins parts of small engines (lawnmowers, etc) and older engines not design for it.
All of this for slightly lower emissions. If the government didn't have mafia style control over the situation I would boycott this stuff in a heartbeat.
The stuff costs more (it's subsidized by our tax money), it can't be piped, and it lowers gas millage. On top of that we make it the least efficient way possible...with corn. It's also one of the major reasons food prices are so high and still rising.
It also ruins parts of small engines (lawnmowers, etc) and older engines not design for it.
All of this for slightly lower emissions. If the government didn't have mafia style control over the situation I would boycott this stuff in a heartbeat.
#13
06-19-2008 | 11:52 AM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 253
From: Parma Heights, OH, USA
buddy, you are also correct there as well. Besides the mechanical issues, it may be less expensive at the pump, but a part of your taxes is already paying for ethanol production.
I forgot that they don't "pipeline" it like other fuels. This again is the solvent issue that breaks down rubber seals and poly resins that bind fiberglass.
I forgot that they don't "pipeline" it like other fuels. This again is the solvent issue that breaks down rubber seals and poly resins that bind fiberglass.
#15
06-19-2008 | 01:09 PM
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 66
From: Minnesota, Eh?!
Hey you know what, speaking of videos, I saw one last week where these guys were sitting at a table and popped corn with their cells phones. Wow.
I know that there are a bunch of people who are saying it's a fraud and hoax, people who are engineers and stuff, but, pfftt, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong. You can pop corn with cell phones.
I know that there are a bunch of people who are saying it's a fraud and hoax, people who are engineers and stuff, but, pfftt, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong. You can pop corn with cell phones.
But like I referred to my brother-in-laws flex vehicle, the efficiency drops a lot (I hear the number 33% kicked around) I must also amend something, when he told me the 40-45 cent per gallon cost difference to make it worth while...that was a few years ago... gas was cheaper and 45 cents a gallon was probably enough to offset the loss in mileage. Today it would have to be at least 1 dollar or more difference.
Personally I don't like E85, it simply isn't a long term solution as a fuel resource. I'll be surprised that as energy prices to produce E85 and subsidies go away (or at least fail to support it on a larger scale) that it remains cost effecitive... it barely pays for itself now, ultimately it will be the to almight doller that decides whether or not it stays.
#17
06-19-2008 | 01:21 PM
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 253
From: Parma Heights, OH, USA
Sorry, I took you as serious, This is the main problem with e-mail and message boards, the tone is often lost and there is no body language to read. I swear, more flame wars are started over a missed emoticon ;p than the actual language.
I did find some anecdotal information about the vehicle in this video, Starting in 1999 GM built most of their V8 engines, and vehicles that they put them in, to meet the pending e85 standard, but did not, and still does not, guarentee this on unbadged vehicles. The engines were labeled as the L59. This is not unusual in the auto industry. Often lab tested changes are put in and tested in real life before announced to the public. This means that the 2000 Tahoe may be technically e85 ready, but not guarenteed to meet the final specs.
Also I find interesting that they say this is a 2000 model year with a 5.7L (350CID) engine. In 2000 there was no 5.7L. The closest engine was the Vortec 5300, a 5.3L engine which was available in the L59 version starting in 1999.
Also keep in mind that this vid was made by the ethanol industry who would love more tax dollars.
I did find some anecdotal information about the vehicle in this video, Starting in 1999 GM built most of their V8 engines, and vehicles that they put them in, to meet the pending e85 standard, but did not, and still does not, guarentee this on unbadged vehicles. The engines were labeled as the L59. This is not unusual in the auto industry. Often lab tested changes are put in and tested in real life before announced to the public. This means that the 2000 Tahoe may be technically e85 ready, but not guarenteed to meet the final specs.
Also I find interesting that they say this is a 2000 model year with a 5.7L (350CID) engine. In 2000 there was no 5.7L. The closest engine was the Vortec 5300, a 5.3L engine which was available in the L59 version starting in 1999.
Also keep in mind that this vid was made by the ethanol industry who would love more tax dollars.
#18
06-19-2008 | 01:25 PM
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 66
From: Minnesota, Eh?!
even if the car was designed for flex fuel? that makes no sense... I'm disregarding the above post.
I'll try a gallon, if I am low on gas after monday, since I'm on a schedule, I don't know what this will do, and I need to be at the job interview in Chicago tomorrow morning, and another job interview in Glendale IL Monday morning.
Thanks for the input, and that video was nice.
pft, damage to the fuel pump/lines, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong, and the parts looked like new too.
I'll try a gallon, if I am low on gas after monday, since I'm on a schedule, I don't know what this will do, and I need to be at the job interview in Chicago tomorrow morning, and another job interview in Glendale IL Monday morning.
Thanks for the input, and that video was nice.
pft, damage to the fuel pump/lines, jeeze that video just proved it completely wrong, and the parts looked like new too.
It's my opinion a single tank/partial tank wouldn't hurt anything and would be an interesting experiment, but personally the known efficiency loss (in flex vehicles as well) is enough that I wouldn't bother.
#19
06-19-2008 | 01:26 PM
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 66
From: Minnesota, Eh?!
Sorry, I took you as serious, This is the main problem with e-mail and message boards, the tone is often lost and there is no body language to read. I swear, more flame wars are started over a missed emoticon ;p than the actual language.
I did find some anecdotal information about the vehicle in this video, Starting in 1999 GM built most of their V8 engines, and vehicles that they put them in, to meet the pending e85 standard, but did not, and still does not, guarentee this on unbadged vehicles. The engines were labeled as the L59. This is not unusual in the auto industry. Often lab tested changes are put in and tested in real life before announced to the public. This means that the 2000 Tahoe may be technically e85 ready, but not guarenteed to meet the final specs.
Also I find interesting that they say this is a 2000 model year with a 5.7L (350CID) engine. In 2000 there was no 5.7L. The closest engine was the Vortec 5300, a 5.3L engine which was available in the L59 version starting in 1999.
Also keep in mind that this vid was made by the ethanol industry who would love more tax dollars.
I did find some anecdotal information about the vehicle in this video, Starting in 1999 GM built most of their V8 engines, and vehicles that they put them in, to meet the pending e85 standard, but did not, and still does not, guarentee this on unbadged vehicles. The engines were labeled as the L59. This is not unusual in the auto industry. Often lab tested changes are put in and tested in real life before announced to the public. This means that the 2000 Tahoe may be technically e85 ready, but not guarenteed to meet the final specs.
Also I find interesting that they say this is a 2000 model year with a 5.7L (350CID) engine. In 2000 there was no 5.7L. The closest engine was the Vortec 5300, a 5.3L engine which was available in the L59 version starting in 1999.
Also keep in mind that this vid was made by the ethanol industry who would love more tax dollars.
#20
06-19-2008 | 02:54 PM
I purchase which ever is cheaper between the 87 octane and 89 octane and average in the high 30's if not low 40's for MPG on the highway constantly.
This was the only hint I needed to know to stay away from that stuff:
This was the only hint I needed to know to stay away from that stuff:
Last edited by Biven5; 06-19-2008 at 02:57 PM. Reason: Hit Post To Early