E85
E85
So I've had my taurus for a long time now, and I finally ran the tank darn near empty, and put $20 of E85 in her. Its the first time I've done this, so I'll see how it goes. Anyone else have a flex fuel vehicle and use this stuff? It was $.30 less per gallon than 87. Aparently thats not cheap enough for me to save money, but at least 85% of the money I spent should stay here in the US rather than to the middle east or Venezuala.
Needs to be more Astony
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
So I've had my taurus for a long time now, and I finally ran the tank darn near empty, and put $20 of E85 in her. Its the first time I've done this, so I'll see how it goes. Anyone else have a flex fuel vehicle and use this stuff? It was $.30 less per gallon than 87. Aparently thats not cheap enough for me to save money, but at least 85% of the money I spent should stay here in the US rather than to the middle east or Venezuala.
i didn't think ford had any flex cars.. if its not you should not be using E85
Team Mustang Source
Joined: July 4, 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis Area
Ford made a lot of flex fuel vehicles in the early 2000's. For some reason they seem to have stopped making them though. The Taurus/Sable was one, the Rangers were another. I think even some vans might have been E85 compatible too, but I can't really remember which ones.
I know the 2008 Crown Vics are supposed to be flex fuel too.
I know the 2008 Crown Vics are supposed to be flex fuel too.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
I'm a propornent of ehtanol, but I am not a fan of E85 (100% is the answer, not 85%) and most cars currently designed to run on both are effectively gasoline engined cars which can run on ethanol and not truly bi-fuel designs. You probably wont be overly impressed, but don't let this color your view since this isn't going to be representative of the possibilities ehtnaol brings to the table.
I'm a propornent of ehtanol, but I am not a fan of E85 (100% is the answer, not 85%) and most cars currently designed to run on both are effectively gasoline engined cars which can run on ethanol and not truly bi-fuel designs. You probably wont be overly impressed, but don't let this color your view since this isn't going to be representative of the possibilities ehtnaol brings to the table.
Cam Tease
Joined: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
[quote=jsaylor;1047546]I'm a propornent of ehtanol, but I am not a fan of E85 (100% is the answer, not 85%) .../quote]
You serious? You don't see the moral imperative to NOT turn acres of acres of crops into fuel to meet our sick vehicular demands? I expect you'd come back with "No no, ethanol derived from the unedible gossamer, or switchgrass or blah blah." But those are tremendously inefficient starting points if the goal is burnable, transportable, and feasibly energy dense fuel. The answer is completely replacing coal burning power plants with geothermal stations, nuclear reactors (these have incredible safety records and are only getting safer), solar panels, windmills and whatnot. Both providing infinite and clean sources of energy for heavy industry, home power, and the inevitable entirely electric cars (the real future, not ethanol and not hydrogen). Further, this would free up the coal currrently alotted to firing our heavy industry to availability for conversion to liquid coal fuels (to help hold us over while electric batteries and motors develop). As another stopgap measure, we must research new rubber production methods (a huge drain on the world's oil reserves). And as the crowning jewel, we need international governments and auto industries to sign into a compact to dedicate X amount of dollars to a collective technological superfund each year to hasten the development of efficiency technologies. If every car was lighter weight and powered by a turbo hybrid, direct injection, homogenized charge compression ignition engine putting power through an SMG or CVT ...not only would economies of scale make these technologies cheaper, but these techs working in synergy could make today's oil reserves, coal reserves, and hell, even ethanol, last for far longer than our steel reserves to continue building cars for the fuels to power.
Anyway...
You serious? You don't see the moral imperative to NOT turn acres of acres of crops into fuel to meet our sick vehicular demands? I expect you'd come back with "No no, ethanol derived from the unedible gossamer, or switchgrass or blah blah." But those are tremendously inefficient starting points if the goal is burnable, transportable, and feasibly energy dense fuel. The answer is completely replacing coal burning power plants with geothermal stations, nuclear reactors (these have incredible safety records and are only getting safer), solar panels, windmills and whatnot. Both providing infinite and clean sources of energy for heavy industry, home power, and the inevitable entirely electric cars (the real future, not ethanol and not hydrogen). Further, this would free up the coal currrently alotted to firing our heavy industry to availability for conversion to liquid coal fuels (to help hold us over while electric batteries and motors develop). As another stopgap measure, we must research new rubber production methods (a huge drain on the world's oil reserves). And as the crowning jewel, we need international governments and auto industries to sign into a compact to dedicate X amount of dollars to a collective technological superfund each year to hasten the development of efficiency technologies. If every car was lighter weight and powered by a turbo hybrid, direct injection, homogenized charge compression ignition engine putting power through an SMG or CVT ...not only would economies of scale make these technologies cheaper, but these techs working in synergy could make today's oil reserves, coal reserves, and hell, even ethanol, last for far longer than our steel reserves to continue building cars for the fuels to power.
Anyway...
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
[quote=AnotherMustangMan;1047618]
Of course...because it isn't as though we live in a society rife with ridiculously huge farm subsidies intended to shore up the prices for an industry where existing production possibilities far exceed demand despite the fact that most arable land still lay unused....oh, wait a second. 
All kidding aside I agree with a lot of what you say, in particular I am a fan of implementing the micro-plant concept for nuclear power, but I obviously disagree with your thoughts on ethanol.
I'm a propornent of ehtanol, but I am not a fan of E85 (100% is the answer, not 85%) .../quote]
You serious? You don't see the moral imperative to NOT turn acres of acres of crops into fuel to meet our sick vehicular demands? I expect you'd come back with "No no, ethanol derived from the unedible gossamer, or switchgrass or blah blah." But those are tremendously inefficient starting points if the goal is burnable, transportable, and feasibly energy dense fuel. The answer is completely replacing coal burning power plants with geothermal stations, nuclear reactors (these have incredible safety records and are only getting safer), solar panels, windmills and whatnot. Both providing infinite and clean sources of energy for heavy industry, home power, and the inevitable entirely electric cars (the real future, not ethanol and not hydrogen). Further, this would free up the coal currrently alotted to firing our heavy industry to availability for conversion to liquid coal fuels (to help hold us over while electric batteries and motors develop). As another stopgap measure, we must research new rubber production methods (a huge drain on the world's oil reserves). And as the crowning jewel, we need international governments and auto industries to sign into a compact to dedicate X amount of dollars to a collective technological superfund each year to hasten the development of efficiency technologies. If every car was lighter weight and powered by a turbo hybrid, direct injection, homogenized charge compression ignition engine putting power through an SMG or CVT ...not only would economies of scale make these technologies cheaper, but these techs working in synergy could make today's oil reserves, coal reserves, and hell, even ethanol, last for far longer than our steel reserves to continue building cars for the fuels to power.
Anyway...
You serious? You don't see the moral imperative to NOT turn acres of acres of crops into fuel to meet our sick vehicular demands? I expect you'd come back with "No no, ethanol derived from the unedible gossamer, or switchgrass or blah blah." But those are tremendously inefficient starting points if the goal is burnable, transportable, and feasibly energy dense fuel. The answer is completely replacing coal burning power plants with geothermal stations, nuclear reactors (these have incredible safety records and are only getting safer), solar panels, windmills and whatnot. Both providing infinite and clean sources of energy for heavy industry, home power, and the inevitable entirely electric cars (the real future, not ethanol and not hydrogen). Further, this would free up the coal currrently alotted to firing our heavy industry to availability for conversion to liquid coal fuels (to help hold us over while electric batteries and motors develop). As another stopgap measure, we must research new rubber production methods (a huge drain on the world's oil reserves). And as the crowning jewel, we need international governments and auto industries to sign into a compact to dedicate X amount of dollars to a collective technological superfund each year to hasten the development of efficiency technologies. If every car was lighter weight and powered by a turbo hybrid, direct injection, homogenized charge compression ignition engine putting power through an SMG or CVT ...not only would economies of scale make these technologies cheaper, but these techs working in synergy could make today's oil reserves, coal reserves, and hell, even ethanol, last for far longer than our steel reserves to continue building cars for the fuels to power.
Anyway...
All kidding aside I agree with a lot of what you say, in particular I am a fan of implementing the micro-plant concept for nuclear power, but I obviously disagree with your thoughts on ethanol.
well...obviously this has turned into a mini debate. Bottom line...no one will do anything if there isnt money to be made in it. if eathanol become the next "crude"...than the ethanol people will just get as rich as OPEC...at least most of that will be in the US and bolster our economy. That whould help us untill we figure something else out. We just need to get out of the oil problem.
we'll..I' wont do that again untill E85 is like $0.20 a gallon. I knew my MPG would suffer...but I didnt expect it to be that bad....I was getting somwhree from 22-23 MPG city on gas....compared to 13-14 mpg on the E85.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: July 16, 2004
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
From: Greenfield In.
The info I have read on E-85 is 30% less fuel mileage on cars tuned to run on both. It does have a higher octane rating (110) than regular fuel so a high compression engine might benefit somehow on this stuff. I havent heard from anyone in the racing industry talking about it so there might be a trick to it still. The Indy Racing League (IRL) switched to 100% ethanol this year from Methanol and they are getting way better fuel mileage so the High compression engine must like it.
Needs to be more Astony
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
