EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

[Frank Lee]

You sure wasted a lot of time on that. For nothing.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Ecky

The E85 stations are always packed, too. Even at 95% the cost of regular gasoline, people line up to put it in their tanks.

What percent of people buying E85 know that it contains roughly 70% of the energy of regular gasoline? Heck, what percentage of the customers even track their fuel economy so they would know how cost effective it is to run E85?

Most people aren't very rational, so the majority of people lining up to buy E85 just see that it costs less than gasoline, and figure they are saving money. This uninformed consumerism would have the effect of increasing demand for E85, and thus increasing the price.

If people were more rational, it would drive the cost of E85 down.

[Frank Lee]

I know how much energy it contains and I still buy it because it saves money. What up wid dat?

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I know how much energy it contains and I still buy it because it saves money. What up wid dat?

The people in my town buy it even though it doesn't actually save them money. Gas is around $3.20 here, and E85 is about $2.80-3.00, and the E85 stations are always packed.

Frank, you're a lot more intelligent than most of the people on the roads.

[Frank Lee]

Well... maybe they are driven by factors other than cost?

One can still save money at that spread by running 50/50. It wouldn't be a fortune though.

[Ecky]

As redpoint5 suggested, it's almost certainly motivated solely by the idea that they can put a gallon of something that lets them drive their car in for cheaper (per gallon). I get the impression most people don't have even a remote idea of what their gas mileage is. My neighbor seems to think his Mini gets 100mpg+, which could easily be corrected with 30 seconds of rough mental math.

[Frank Lee]

Probably right.

[roosterk0031]

If the BTU/mile was true my impala shouldn't brake 20 mpg on it, but averages close to 24.

Only tanks below 20 are due to the dash & gauges not working quite a bit during those tanks due to short in wires under the seat, I should delete those.

Same for the 2002 Suburan I had, tanks listed on fuelly, 35 tanks of E10 15.2 mpg, E85 should have barely made 10, yet 30 tanks of E85 averaged over 12.

[Daox]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Let’s take my trusty old B-body Impala.
...
The EPA won’t let me jack up the compression ratio or advance the spark timing. That increases NOx emissions and the EPA views that as “tampering.” So the car still gets 172.4 miles per MMBTU.

The thing is, the EPA does let you change spark advance (nobody is using variable compression ratio as far as I know). That is why flex fuel vehicles have ethanol sensors, to detect what mix their fuel is and optimize spark ignition for it (and adjust injector duty cycle).

Flexible fuel vehicles use a sensor to determine the percentage of ethanol in the fuel mix (which varies not only with the season and location, but also with the relative amounts of E85 and gasoline in the tank at fill-up) and adjust the fuel injection and timing to suit the fuel.

Reference: Flex Fuel with MegaSquirt


I'm going to have to say Frank is right in that just because it has a 30% lower BTU content doesn't mean it gets 30% lower fuel economy. There is some optimization for ethanol built into flex fuel vehicles (which obviously isn't all vehicles on the road).

[Frank Lee]

EPA doesn't care if I shave the heads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyxLGSMtqtM