To Flex-Fuel or not to Flex-Fuel?
December 14th, 2014, 8:53 PM
#11
Administrator
Kansas still allows it but only a few stations carry it and premium only. My experiment last summer over about ten tanks revealed better mpg and it was enuf to more than break even on the price increase.
December 15th, 2014, 7:14 AM
#12
For the love of God man, don't do it!
DO NOT RUN this fake fuel in your vehicle, or any vehicle.
WORSE MPG. More engine issues, more environmental impact.
skip it!
There are dozens of articles that read how sellers trick people into buying it, humans don't think things through. In the article, they detailed how people buy e85 when it's $1.00 + cheaper than gas per gallon.
The MPG hit is worse. Everything about the situation is worse.
and now that oil is at historic lows, there is no reason at all to use E85.
I wish they'd kill off E10! It's destroyed many boat engines and parts!
DO NOT RUN this fake fuel in your vehicle, or any vehicle.
WORSE MPG. More engine issues, more environmental impact.
skip it!
There are dozens of articles that read how sellers trick people into buying it, humans don't think things through. In the article, they detailed how people buy e85 when it's $1.00 + cheaper than gas per gallon.
The MPG hit is worse. Everything about the situation is worse.
and now that oil is at historic lows, there is no reason at all to use E85.
I wish they'd kill off E10! It's destroyed many boat engines and parts!
December 15th, 2014, 11:12 AM
#13
CF Beginner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I sure hit a nerve. And glad to hear some real-life stories about the stuff. Never used it, and really didn't plan to. Just wanted to know if I have the option to be able to use it, if the need ever arose.
I remember hearing a story (dunno if it's true) that it takes more energy to make a quantity of e85 than it supposedly saves if we used it.
Thanks
I remember hearing a story (dunno if it's true) that it takes more energy to make a quantity of e85 than it supposedly saves if we used it.
Thanks
December 15th, 2014, 11:26 AM
#14
Administrator
Wow, I sure hit a nerve. And glad to hear some real-life stories about the stuff. Never used it, and really didn't plan to. Just wanted to know if I have the option to be able to use it, if the need ever arose.
I remember hearing a story (dunno if it's true) that it takes more energy to make a quantity of e85 than it supposedly saves if we used it.
Thanks
I remember hearing a story (dunno if it's true) that it takes more energy to make a quantity of e85 than it supposedly saves if we used it.
Thanks
A decent code reader with data will tell you what your current alcohol% is .... If you use fuel injector cleaner or fuel treatments which contain alcohol it will show up in the % reading...
with regular pump gas and using Techron, I have seen my alcohol go as high as 30%
SabrToothSqrl "For the love of God man, don't do it!"
December 15th, 2014, 12:19 PM
#15
Fuel
As a planet, we need to stop burning fuel. Period. It causes pollution/waste/etc. etc etc.
Ethanol is not the direction we need to go, it's wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
From the clearing of land to grow corn (thus consuming diesel, land, pesticides, fuel, oil, etc) to the raise in corn prices, to the raise in beef prices, to the energy consumed refining this fuel, to the known damage it does to engines...
It's just... flat out wrong. Similar to Fuel cells, (which are not the future of the auto industry), but that's another story
If you'd like to read how they are fooling them selves into thinking E85 has a future; read here:
http://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Resear...isForecast.pdf
Read heavily into sentences like "It stands to reason that the more vehicles in the market
that can use a fuel product, the greater chance there is that retailers will decide to sell that product."
and
"When comparing E85 with gasoline (assuming a
10% ethanol concentration) on a strict energycontent
basis, E85 (when blended with 74% ethanol)
contains on average 22.8% fewer BTUs (British
thermal units). This energy deficit represents the
maximum potential reduction in miles per gallon
when FFVs operate on E85, however vehicle efficiencies
can offset some of this reduced energy content
to deliver more miles per gallon."
What that huge fancy line reads is: "You'll get less miles per gallon, fill up more often, and risk destroying your engine".
Good times.
My personal issue is the destruction of engines I've paid for, and the poor running condition of my own personal lawn equipment.
I've gone to buying gas by the can at Lowes just to get 'REAL GAS'.
Ethanol is not the direction we need to go, it's wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
From the clearing of land to grow corn (thus consuming diesel, land, pesticides, fuel, oil, etc) to the raise in corn prices, to the raise in beef prices, to the energy consumed refining this fuel, to the known damage it does to engines...
It's just... flat out wrong. Similar to Fuel cells, (which are not the future of the auto industry), but that's another story
If you'd like to read how they are fooling them selves into thinking E85 has a future; read here:
http://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Resear...isForecast.pdf
Read heavily into sentences like "It stands to reason that the more vehicles in the market
that can use a fuel product, the greater chance there is that retailers will decide to sell that product."
and
"When comparing E85 with gasoline (assuming a
10% ethanol concentration) on a strict energycontent
basis, E85 (when blended with 74% ethanol)
contains on average 22.8% fewer BTUs (British
thermal units). This energy deficit represents the
maximum potential reduction in miles per gallon
when FFVs operate on E85, however vehicle efficiencies
can offset some of this reduced energy content
to deliver more miles per gallon."
What that huge fancy line reads is: "You'll get less miles per gallon, fill up more often, and risk destroying your engine".
Good times.
My personal issue is the destruction of engines I've paid for, and the poor running condition of my own personal lawn equipment.
I've gone to buying gas by the can at Lowes just to get 'REAL GAS'.
Last edited by SabrToothSqrl; December 15th, 2014 at 12:21 PM.
December 15th, 2014, 4:07 PM
#16
As a planet, we need to stop burning fuel. Period. It causes pollution/waste/etc. etc etc.
Ethanol is not the direction we need to go, it's wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
From the clearing of land to grow corn (thus consuming diesel, land, pesticides, fuel, oil, etc) to the raise in corn prices, to the raise in beef prices, to the energy consumed refining this fuel, to the known damage it does to engines...
It's just... flat out wrong. ...
Ethanol is not the direction we need to go, it's wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
From the clearing of land to grow corn (thus consuming diesel, land, pesticides, fuel, oil, etc) to the raise in corn prices, to the raise in beef prices, to the energy consumed refining this fuel, to the known damage it does to engines...
It's just... flat out wrong. ...
Guess who wins that fight?
Sure, let's take 25% of one of our staple crops and burn it in our gas tanks. What could possibly go wrong?
December 15th, 2014, 9:12 PM
#17
Administrator
The folks in Mexico were pi55ed when we started make alcohol out of our corn because it drove the price of corn up. Also caused beef prices to soar w/ the increase in feed prices.
Yes it does when everything is factored in.
I remember hearing a story (dunno if it's true) that it takes more energy to make a quantity of e85 than it supposedly saves if we used it.
December 16th, 2014, 10:14 AM
#18
Energy
I can't see how it couldn't
Also, don't forget, ethanol has less BTU per gallon, so what we should be measuring is energy here...
Let's clear land, plant crap, put down chemicals, wait for it to grow, water it, harvest it, cook it, transport it.
vs. pipe it out of the ground, refine it, transport it, burn it.
No freaking way, from any angle is it safer, cheaper, or more environmentally friendly to use corn to make ethanol... not even considering the impact on the food markets...
It was all a scam to get votes from farmers... who would grow and sell more corn.
Also, don't forget, ethanol has less BTU per gallon, so what we should be measuring is energy here...
Let's clear land, plant crap, put down chemicals, wait for it to grow, water it, harvest it, cook it, transport it.
vs. pipe it out of the ground, refine it, transport it, burn it.
No freaking way, from any angle is it safer, cheaper, or more environmentally friendly to use corn to make ethanol... not even considering the impact on the food markets...
It was all a scam to get votes from farmers... who would grow and sell more corn.
January 26th, 2015, 7:02 PM
#19
January 27th, 2015, 7:19 AM
#20
CF Beginner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting test, thanks for posting it. I'm sure there are some inherent variables since the tests weren't done in a purely 'sterile environment' (traffic, winds, etc) but it looks like the end-result is enough to make the case.
A local entrepreneur is collecting waste cooking-oil and making his own bio-fuel on-premises for sale. Supposed to smell like french-fries. I'd love to put some in my Cummins-powered RV, but Cummins said not to do it for my vehicle. When's lunch?
A local entrepreneur is collecting waste cooking-oil and making his own bio-fuel on-premises for sale. Supposed to smell like french-fries. I'd love to put some in my Cummins-powered RV, but Cummins said not to do it for my vehicle. When's lunch?