I'm calling BS, what do you think?

[oil pan 4]

Got a guy that claims to use over 65% ethanol in a nonflex fuel 2000 Ford Windstar and says he sees no significant change in mileage when using E65 vs. regular gas.
Anyone else buy that?

[Frank Lee]

I don't buy it. Can he produce the gas logs?

Then again, his idea of "significant" might be different than ours... if it gets 22 on E10 but 20 on E65 he might be thinking that's not much of a difference.

[Diesel_Dave]

First off, where did he get E65? I don't think I've ever seen that for sale.

E65 would have around 20% less energy per gallon than gasoline. I'm not sure what he claims he's done to his engine, but getting 20% better engine efficiency takes some very serious modifications. 20% better vehicle fuel economy is one thing, 20% better engine fuel economy requires some major, major changes.

[Daox]

If he has increased the compression ratio and adjusted timing I wouldn't be horribly surprised.

[Frank Lee]

"E65" is an easy in-the-tank blend of 2 gallons E85 per 1 gallon E10.

P.S. PLUS we have blender pumps where several strengths can be selected at the pump.

I've found no significant fe difference between E10 and 50/50 E10/E85 (which would be about E48) but above that strength fe does start to taper off BUT not in a ratio linear with the energy content of the fuel.

[roosterk0031]

U of North Dakota did some research on E blends that's a interesting read.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...0hzllzFuumXRDg

My Stratus up to about E45 blends follows the energy curve almost perfectly.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

I'm not sure what he claims he's done to his engine, but getting 20% better engine efficiency takes some very serious modifications.

No modfication claims have been made.

Going by the small sample size of vehicles provided by U of ND blends of E20 to E30 seem to deliver the best result. Much beyond that and FE drops.

Funny thing is E10 showed losses all but for the chevy flex fuel.

[roosterk0031]

There was another E blend test I think in Sweden or Finland that used a mixed bag of cars, but their testing wasn't as scientific as Uof ND.

Missed that the FFV Impala was the only one that didn't loose MPG with E10, thank's for pointing it out, I'll have to try E0 in it sometime. But with being wife car most numbers are of limited value. With her previous car (2002 FFV Suburban) over 1,000s of miles she average 15 mpg with E10, 12.5 or 13 with E85, I think it was 18% loss in FE for something around 25% loss in energy (data on Fuelly).



Edit: E10 vs E30 testing

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...n-2bSkJ4A24MMg

[bennelson]

In our area, we have E85.

A friend took an old (non-flex-fuel) mini-van with a 6-cylinder, and changed out the fuel-injectors to a different, larger, size. That basically converts the van to run on only E85 (can't run it on regular gas anymore.)

I'm not sure what else he did to the van (timing, etc.) but he's a pretty good mechanic, and smart guy.

We packed the van full once (I think it was 7 people) and got 28 mpg on a trip through Chicago.

Seemed like a really good vehicle project - burns clean, got good fuel economy, especially considering the city traffic.

There are a number of vehicles out there that are "bi-fuel", that have some disadvantages over just the one fuel or the other. I think that by converting a vehicle to run on just one specific fuel, you can tune it to run really well that way. "Flex-Fuel" vehicles have the disadvantage of needing to be able to run on a mix of anything from 100% gasoline to 85%ethanol/15% gasoline.