Is Ethanol Robbing Me Of MPG?

[garys_1k]

Ethanol does produce less energy per gallon, but FE does not go down proportionally, torque does. So, to get the same torque you'll open the throttle more, reducing pumping losses (improved volumetric efficiency). Depending on the engine, gearing, and load you may improve your overall efficiency faster by reducing those pumping losses faster than you're losing out due to the lower energy content.

[SuperTrooper]

For what it's worth, here is an EPA estimate for a Flexfuel Chevy Tahoe 1500 2WD:
City Hwy
Gas 14 20

E85 11 15

The E85 comes out ahead in the EPA's "Carbon Footprint" rating (tons/yr of CO2): 9.2 vs 11.4.

I've never seen E85 here in New England, so I'm curious how much is a gallon of E85?

[johnpr]

around here it is between .40 - 1.00 less than regular, i'll drive by the station today and tell you todays price difference

[garys_1k]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I run E85 in non-flex fuel vehicles.

I'd be careful of doing that -- best to follow the directions in the vehicle's book on fuel.

[Zukibot]

Having been switched to e10 in our area, expect to see a decrease in mileage. Maybe around 4%. Burns cleaner, but you get less mileage... Not a good trade-off. Potentially much worse for the environment and your vehicle. Definitely worse for your wallet.

[rocket]

ethanol is bad for everyone, it decreased the amount of food availible for eating (and exporting to poor nations as aid), increases the cost of food, rasises our taxes (ethanol production is not profitable, it's HEAVILY subsidised), takes more energy to produce than you get out of it, can can drop MPGs. what is the benefit?

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by rocket

ethanol is bad for everyone, it decreased the amount of food availible for eating (and exporting to poor nations as aid), increases the cost of food, rasises our taxes (ethanol production is not profitable, it's HEAVILY subsidised),

Have you seriously looked at food subsidies?
Are you familiar with the term dumping before you say high food prices is bad for the third world?

Originally Posted by rocket

takes more energy to produce than you get out of it,

This is propeganda, as modern studies dont support this claim. It WAS only true of corn ethanol anyway.

Originally Posted by rocket

can can drop MPGs. what is the benefit?

Carbon neutral fuel.
Octane of 116 in its pure form.
Oxyegenate when mixed with gasoline
Much more ecologically friendly when spilled into the ground.
Has antifreeze properties when mixed with gas for winter use.
Ethanol has solvent properties that keep engine components cleaner.

[PaleMelanesian]

What other method of ethanol production is available in this country? So far, NONE. Cellulosic is only now beginning on a tiny scale. Sugar cane can only grow in small areas of the gulf coast. It's all corn.

[fshagan]

E10 works in most cars, or so I've heard. But E10 can cause problems for other vehicles; sometimes the mix out of the pump is actually higher than 10% ethanol, and for some motors like outboards and inboards on boats, it can cause quite a few problems. I think its related to releasing deposits in the tanks, but I'm not sure.

Anyway, be careful using E10 or anything higher in ethanol in non-automotive motors.

[ttoyoda]

What other method of ethanol production is available in this country? So far, NONE. Cellulosic is only now beginning on a tiny scale. Sugar cane can only grow in small areas of the gulf coast. It's all corn.

The real benefit of flex fuel would be to burn methanol. That you can get from digesting wood scraps and all sorts of trash.
Robert Zubrin on Making Oil Compete on National Review Online
From the article:
"
However, there is now a way to break OPEC, a surprisingly simple one. What is needed is for Congress to pass a law requiring that all new cars sold (not just made, but sold) in the U.S. be flex-fueled — that is, be able to run on any combination of gasoline or alcohol fuels. Such cars already exist — two dozen different models of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are being produced by Detroit’s Big Three this year — and they only cost about $100 more than identical models that can run on gasoline only. (The switch to FFV requires only two minor upgrades: in the materials used in the fuel line and in the software controlling the electronic fuel injector.)

FFVs currently command only about 3 percent of the new-car market. After all, there is little upside for consumers to own one, with alcohol-fuel pumps being nearly as rare as unicorns. Little wonder: Why should gas-station owners dedicate one of their pumps to alcohol fuels (like E85 — a mix of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline — or M50 — a mix of half methanol and half gasoline) when only a tiny percentage of cars can use them? But, within three years of the enactment of an FFV mandate, there would be 50 million cars on American roads capable of running on high-alcohol fuels. Under those conditions, fuel pumps dispensing E85 and M50 would be everywhere — creating, for the first time, an effectively open market in vehicle fuels, and competition for OPEC oil.

By mandating that all new cars sold in the U.S. have flex-fuel capacity, we would induce all foreign automakers who want access to the American car market to switch their lines to flex fuel as well, effectively making flex fuel the international standard. In addition to the 50 million FFVs we’d see in the U.S. in three years, there would be hundreds of millions more worldwide that could be powered by any number of alternative fuels derived from numerous sources around the globe, forcing gasoline to compete everywhere. This would effectively break the vertical monopoly that the oil cartel currently holds on the world’s fuel supply, constraining prices to the $50-per-barrel range (where alcohol fuels become competitive). "

This is a govt. regulation I could agree with. Better than most they come up with!