EPA implements E85 testing for 2016 model year

[gone-ot]

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

[ksa8907]

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.

[redpoint5]

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?

[ME_Andy]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

[jcp123]

Bah. E85. Even if I liked the stuff, I'm still not sure I trust the EIA or EPA to properly test it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by ME_Andy

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.

[Xist]

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?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

[adam728]

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).

[Frank Lee]

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.