Why is Ethanol such a polarizing topic?

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Sorry, but my data indicates that "Flex" engines not incorporating turbochargers (to yield variable-compression ratio operation) have been LESS efficient...only those engines capable of operating at higher CR can effectively "use" the higher octane value of E85 and so advance timing to produce more HP...but NOT better fuel economy, ie more distance per gallon.

False, flexfuel engines have been advertised as making more power on Ethanol since they were introduced. 99% of them are Naturally Aspirated and have exactly the same compression ratio as their non-FFV versions to allow for efficient operation on Gasoline.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

True in "short-duration" operation for diesels (CI), but not under continued long-duration operation because gasoline/alcohol 'solvent' is damaging to injectors, because the injectors rely on diesel for lubrication...which E85 lacks. The new gasoline direct-injection (GDI, SIDI, etc.) engines will 'test' the quality & durability of new piezo-injectors with gasoline AND E85.

False, long term reliability studies show little to no degradation with Ethanol. I have only heard anecdotes of fuel injectors clogging due to Ethanol picking up crap from the fuel tank. But never outright failure of fuel injectors. Piezo injectors aren't used in everything. Ford is using cheaper units for their DI FFVs.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Current EPA regulations effectively dictate SI "closed-loop" engine operation at stoichiometric (~14.7:1 A/F) because of the catalytic convertors; hence, the days--and discussions--of "lean-burn" operation is meaningless.

I was referring to Diesel Engine operation a.k.a Compression Ignited Engines. I apologize for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

At one time the industry 'standard' was 8-hours driving at 50 mph, or 400 mile range, per tank...with tank "capacity" being 'sized' to achieve that range (roughly). Today, the 'standard' is more like 8-hours at 65 mph, or 520 miles expected range. And, since "fuel" is sold by volume, it isn't surprising that some people WANT as much range from each gallon they pay for as possible. It's called being 'conservative/frugile' rather than being 'extravagant/wasteful.'

It's called being penny smart and pound foolish. You give up something of minor benefit now to lose out on a greater gain in the future.

[gone-ot]

Sorry, but the 2013 EPA MPG listings show that most FFV vehicles achieve only 0.65-0.75 the MPG value on E85 that they do on gasoline.

And, while obviously NOT "real world," the EPA numbers are VERY consistent in their testing methodologies...something that drivers are not.

Also, HP efficiency is totally different than FE efficiency...go back and re-read my original statement:

"Sorry, but my data indicates that "Flex" engines not incorporating turbochargers (to yield variable-compression ratio operation) have been LESS efficient...only those engines capable of operating at higher CR can effectively "use" the higher octane value of E85 and so advance timing to produce more HP...but NOT better fuel economy, ie more distance per gallon."

...where "...my data..." refers to EPA published numbers, NOT anecdotal numbers.

Finally, just for final clarity: I am referring only to spark-ignition gasoline engines running E0 through E85 fuels, with the assumption that E85 operation was "designed into" the engine mapping to make it a "Flexible Fuel Vehicle" (FFV) certified to have a yellow-fuel cap. Your comment about E85 being usable in diesel (CI) engines is where I responded about injector problems occuring IN DIESELS because of solvent action of E85...I said nothing about SI engines.

[Frank Lee]

That F150 trip: $2.41/g E85 and $3.53/g regular. Do that math.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What about the rest of what I said?

Can't argue your experience, only quote what the 2013 EPA MPG lists for the Ford 5.0L V8 Pickup 2WD FFV (page 18):

15/21 MPG - GAS
11/15 MPG - E85

...sure looks like a LOSS in fuel economy on E85 to me, ie: 0.73 MPG in city and 0.71 MPG on the highway. Either way, both are ~30% LOSS in MPG.

[Allch Chcar]

EPA numbers for E85 are untested. Read the section on the fuel economy website for Ethanol testing.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

EPA numbers for E85 are untested. Read the section on the fuel economy website for Ethanol testing.

I know, see my earlier post (#52) in this thread:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/384243-post52.html

...and the numbers printed in the EPA MPG listing are "...provided by the vehicle manufacturers."

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

That F150 trip: $2.41/g E85 and $3.53/g regular. Do that math.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...sure looks like a LOSS in fuel economy on E85 to me, ie: 0.73 MPG in city and 0.71 MPG on the highway. Either way, both are ~30% LOSS in MPG.

Even if it is a ~30% loss of MPG ... isn't it still a net benefit when regular costs ~46% more $ per gallon ?

[Frank Lee]

It appears that aspect is being ignored.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It appears that aspect is being ignored.

Not by me or the OEM manufacturers who catagorically declare (in their Owners Manuals) that: (a) their vehicles are NEITHER designed, tested, nor certified for E85 and, therefore, (B) use of E85 voids their warrantee.

If a car is beyond its manufacturer's warrantee period, I see no problem in "experimenting" so long as one is willing to take the risk, otherwise, I adhere to the axiom, "When in doubt...don't."

YMMV.

[Frank Lee]

It has been quite a long time since I owned anything with a warranty!

That said, fuel systems have been ethanol resistant since 1989 so whatever I have from then to new enough to have a warranty, I wouldn't sweat any ethanol fills. The OEMs simply don't want to have their stealerships flooded with people crying about CELs, even though the CEL is simply saying "Oops, Mr. Computer has maxed out the fuel trim and Mr. O2 says it still isn't quite rich enough!"

But you've STILL ignored the aspect I was talking about. :/

Yes, that would be the cost per mile or cost per gallon or just plain cost.