Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-28-2014, 04:33 PM   #1 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

Reading: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/...nce-letter.pdf

and, here's the EPA's Tier 3 E10 ruling: http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/...-new-test-fuel


Last edited by gone-ot; 10-28-2014 at 04:50 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
digital rules (10-29-2014), Frank Lee (10-29-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-28-2014, 10:47 PM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,745

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 206
Thanked 420 Times in 302 Posts
Im curious to see how efficient new cars are with e85. Considering higher compression ratios, direct injection, dual vvt and now some cars with lift control. Should be less of a loss using e85.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2014, 11:44 PM   #3 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,396

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,192
Thanked 4,380 Times in 3,354 Posts
So, we've already established that it's a bad idea for all cars in the US to run E85 from an economic and environmental standpoint, yet the EPA is moving forward with this bad idea?
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 12:07 AM   #4 (permalink)
Growin a stash
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 802
Thanks: 412
Thanked 304 Times in 228 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
we've already established that it's a bad idea for all cars in the US to run E85 from an economic and environmental standpoint
I'm not sure that's true. NREL says that E85 causes either a decrease or has a statistically insignificant effect on tailpipe emissions, so it's a draw in the worst case scenario.

Plus who would you rather give money to, farmer or oilman? I'll take the farmer every time.
__________________


2024 Chevy Bolt

Previous:
2015 Nissan Leaf S, 164 mpge
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 01:23 AM   #5 (permalink)
Just cruisin’ along
 
jcp123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,183

Beater Echo - '00 Toyota Echo
90 day: 42.67 mpg (US)

Hondizzle - '97 Honda Civic DX
Team Honda
90 day: 46.55 mpg (US)

Shaggin Waggin - '14 Chrysler Town + Country
90 day: 22.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 66
Thanked 200 Times in 170 Posts
Bah. E85. Even if I liked the stuff, I'm still not sure I trust the EIA or EPA to properly test it.
__________________



'97 Honda Civic DX Coupe 5MT - dead 2/23
'00 Echo - dead 2/17
'14 Chrysler Town + Country - My DD, for now
'67 Mustang Convertible - gone 1/17
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 02:04 AM   #6 (permalink)
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,396

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 26.68 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,192
Thanked 4,380 Times in 3,354 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ME_Andy View Post
I'm not sure that's true. NREL says that E85 causes either a decrease or has a statistically insignificant effect on tailpipe emissions, so it's a draw in the worst case scenario.

Plus who would you rather give money to, farmer or oilman? I'll take the farmer every time.
It's already been shown that ethanol production displaces food crops, which increases food prices. Increased food prices harm the impoverished more than increased prices for any other good.

There isn't enough farmland currently to move all vehicles to E85. Natural land would need to be cleared and cultivated to meet the demands of an 850% increase in ethanol fuel.

My preference would be to cut oil and farm subsidies and pay whomever offers the most energy for the lowest price; whether that is Bubba or Achmed, I couldn't care less.

That said, I'm extremely interested to see what sort of fuel economy and performance can be created to run on E85. If the performance and economy were sufficient, I might be enticed to purchase such a vehicle and fuel.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 03:51 AM   #7 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,186

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 34.2 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.39 mpg (US)

Don't hit me bro - '05 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,217
Thanked 2,217 Times in 1,708 Posts
Is there any compelling reason to not subsidize sugarcane? According to Sugar cane out for ethanol in the United States - Aug. 6, 2007, it is six times more economical than corn ethanol.

Besides, which do you really prefer, high-fructose corn syrup or actual sugar?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 04:11 AM   #8 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
So, we've already established that it's a bad idea for all cars in the US to run E85 from an economic and environmental standpoint, yet the EPA is moving forward with this bad idea?
We did? When?

Incidentally, two of my vehicles have bellyfulls of E85 right now.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 06:02 AM   #9 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
adam728's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 161

Mazda3 - '08 Mazda 3 S
90 day: 29.65 mpg (US)

DR650SE - '13 Suzuki DR650SE
90 day: 46.16 mpg (US)

Wife's - '12 GMC Terrain SLE-2
Thanks: 2
Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts
I sat through several presentations on ethanol this spring at the SAE congress. The two of them came to the same conclusion, E85 is too much for a vehicle that also has to be able to stomach straight gasoline. Both companies testing showed that E35 to E40 was the breaking point based on cost and fuel economy. If you want to run higher ethanol content than that and get the most benifit from it, then engine design needs to change (compression ratio, combustion chamber shape, etc).
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2014, 07:20 AM   #10 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
I agree that NA dual-fuel engines are compromised but not to an unacceptable degree.

I've run several non FFVs for years on E85; it works, I like it, and I'll keep doing it but there are a few caveats.

P.S. It is these caveats- mainly cold starting in low temps and to a far smaller degree WOT power- that cause SAE to have reservations. They have to design to the lowest common denominator- "idiot proof".

E45 (50/50 E10/E85) behaves very much like E10 as far as mpg and cool weather ops.

__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 10-29-2014 at 10:33 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com