I’ve been seriously considering giving E85 a shot in my 2000 Flex fueled Dodge Caravan especially with the new requirements for oil that can handle that high of an octane. My question however is…..Is it really worth it? The price to me does not seem low enough compared to regular E10 gas, and from my understanding, I will get terrible fuel economy on E85. My mechanic said it wouldn’t be worth it unless it were 2.00 cheaper than regular unleaded.
E-85 in my Dodge Caravan
- Thread starter Mark72
- Start date
- Status
I use E85 regularly in my flex fuel Suburban. It loses about 1 1/2-2 MPG. There is a chart at:
http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php
that has a miles per dollar calculator. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised using E-85. Think dollars per mile not miles per gallon.I paid 2.19/gallon over the weekend here in WI. I use Super Tech synthetic oil and change it at normal intervals. The high octane does not change the oil requirements in a normal passenger vehicle. If is is rated at 250 HP it will still be 250 HP unless you change something (compression, spark curve, camshaft, etc.) Your mechanic is not up to speed and has "old school" thinking. My experience w/ E-85 has been nothing but positive and has saved me some cash besides.
http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php
that has a miles per dollar calculator. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised using E-85. Think dollars per mile not miles per gallon.I paid 2.19/gallon over the weekend here in WI. I use Super Tech synthetic oil and change it at normal intervals. The high octane does not change the oil requirements in a normal passenger vehicle. If is is rated at 250 HP it will still be 250 HP unless you change something (compression, spark curve, camshaft, etc.) Your mechanic is not up to speed and has "old school" thinking. My experience w/ E-85 has been nothing but positive and has saved me some cash besides.
Originally Posted By: beechcraftted
I use E85 regularly in my flex fuel Suburban. It loses about 1 1/2-2 MPG. There is a chart at:
http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php
that has a miles per dollar calculator. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised using E-85. Think dollars per mile not miles per gallon.I paid 2.19/gallon over the weekend here in WI. I use Super Tech synthetic oil and change it at normal intervals. The high octane does not change the oil requirements in a normal passenger vehicle. If is is rated at 250 HP it will still be 250 HP unless you change something (compression, spark curve, camshaft, etc.) Your mechanic is not up to speed and has "old school" thinking. My experience w/ E-85 has been nothing but positive and has saved me some cash besides.
Have you noticed on performance issues? Idling changes? Performance changes ESPECIALLY in colder temps?
I use E85 regularly in my flex fuel Suburban. It loses about 1 1/2-2 MPG. There is a chart at:
http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php
that has a miles per dollar calculator. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised using E-85. Think dollars per mile not miles per gallon.I paid 2.19/gallon over the weekend here in WI. I use Super Tech synthetic oil and change it at normal intervals. The high octane does not change the oil requirements in a normal passenger vehicle. If is is rated at 250 HP it will still be 250 HP unless you change something (compression, spark curve, camshaft, etc.) Your mechanic is not up to speed and has "old school" thinking. My experience w/ E-85 has been nothing but positive and has saved me some cash besides.
Have you noticed on performance issues? Idling changes? Performance changes ESPECIALLY in colder temps?
Of everyone I've spoken to that has a Flex-Fuel vehicle, no one has ever told me anything bad about running E-85.
Most admit that it doesn't get as many miles per gallon as E-10 but insist that it makes their cars "peppier". Might be a mass placebo effect, but if they are happy then I'm happy for them.
My nonFlex-Fuel car prefers gasoline with just gasoline in it. Everytime I work out in the boondocks I am suprised at how much more responsive my car is without 10% ethanol. Perhaps the same placebo effect.
Most admit that it doesn't get as many miles per gallon as E-10 but insist that it makes their cars "peppier". Might be a mass placebo effect, but if they are happy then I'm happy for them.
My nonFlex-Fuel car prefers gasoline with just gasoline in it. Everytime I work out in the boondocks I am suprised at how much more responsive my car is without 10% ethanol. Perhaps the same placebo effect.
By calulation of heat velues E85 will give you 24.7% lower fuel mileage. So if you got 20 mph with no ethonal then you would get only 15.06 mpg with E85. If you are getting 20 mpg with E10 then you would get 15.92 mpg.
Mark 72:
My experience on performance issues: very good...no ping or spark knock,ever due to the 105 octane.
idling: absolutely no diference
cold temps: took a businees trip to N. Dakota, truck sat out at hotel in -15 F. Started right up and ran perfect with a full load of E-85. I know that the BTU rating is some 24% lower, but my experience has not been that drastic, probably due to the fact that the higher octane allows the PCM to maximize spark advance and no knock timing retard ever.
My experience on performance issues: very good...no ping or spark knock,ever due to the 105 octane.
idling: absolutely no diference
cold temps: took a businees trip to N. Dakota, truck sat out at hotel in -15 F. Started right up and ran perfect with a full load of E-85. I know that the BTU rating is some 24% lower, but my experience has not been that drastic, probably due to the fact that the higher octane allows the PCM to maximize spark advance and no knock timing retard ever.
Originally Posted By: beechcraftted
Mark 72:
My experience on performance issues: very good...no ping or spark knock,ever due to the 105 octane.
idling: absolutely no diference
cold temps: took a businees trip to N. Dakota, truck sat out at hotel in -15 F. Started right up and ran perfect with a full load of E-85. I know that the BTU rating is some 24% lower, but my experience has not been that drastic, probably due to the fact that the higher octane allows the PCM to maximize spark advance and no knock timing retard ever.
Sounds like your vehicle is really geared up to run that stuff. Not that all E85 spected vehicles aren't, but I'm sure that some do better than others perhaps? Like others have said, and I've heard all over the place, E85 will give you less fuel economy makeing the cost diferential not worth it.
Mark 72:
My experience on performance issues: very good...no ping or spark knock,ever due to the 105 octane.
idling: absolutely no diference
cold temps: took a businees trip to N. Dakota, truck sat out at hotel in -15 F. Started right up and ran perfect with a full load of E-85. I know that the BTU rating is some 24% lower, but my experience has not been that drastic, probably due to the fact that the higher octane allows the PCM to maximize spark advance and no knock timing retard ever.
Sounds like your vehicle is really geared up to run that stuff. Not that all E85 spected vehicles aren't, but I'm sure that some do better than others perhaps? Like others have said, and I've heard all over the place, E85 will give you less fuel economy makeing the cost diferential not worth it.
E-85 simply does not produce as much energy as gasoline, less mpg and less power. How much and how noticable can be pushed one way or the other by how that car is setup. As to comparing to gasoline its impossible at a customer level. You would need the exact same gasoline and E-85 for several tanks of each and to drive the exact same under identical conditions. By exact meaning an identical batch, which is hard to get same age, formulation may have changed etc...
Last edited:
Less MPG with E85...absolutely agree. With my HHR 2.2 ecotec, I lose right at 12% on the MPG when running E85 vs E10.
But less power?... I dont think so. At least on a properly set up and tuned E85 capable vehicle, you will usually get MORE HP/TQ from the engine.
The GM 2.2 and 2.4 eco E85 engines as an example.....
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 155 / 116 @ 6100 (gas) 172 / 128 @ 5800 (gas)
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 161 / 120 @ 6000 (E85) 176 / 131 @ 5800 (E85)
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 150 / 203 @ 4800 (gas) 167 / 226 @ 4500 (gas)
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 158 / 214 @ 4600 (E85) 170 / 230 @ 5000 (E85)
But less power?... I dont think so. At least on a properly set up and tuned E85 capable vehicle, you will usually get MORE HP/TQ from the engine.
The GM 2.2 and 2.4 eco E85 engines as an example.....
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 155 / 116 @ 6100 (gas) 172 / 128 @ 5800 (gas)
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 161 / 120 @ 6000 (E85) 176 / 131 @ 5800 (E85)
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 150 / 203 @ 4800 (gas) 167 / 226 @ 4500 (gas)
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 158 / 214 @ 4600 (E85) 170 / 230 @ 5000 (E85)
Last edited:
It simply does not produce as much energy and those minute "gains" are within a margin of error. Those figures come from gm not an independant correct? E85 benefits farmers, and well thats it. Its more expensive if not govt subsidized and if a car is flex fuel it is comprimised to use regular or e-85 if it were one or other it could be better optimized.
Originally Posted By: purelux
It simply does not produce as much energy and those minute "gains" are within a margin of error. Those figures come from gm not an independant correct? E85 benefits farmers, and well thats it. Its more expensive if not govt subsidized and if a car is flex fuel it is comprimised to use regular or e-85 if it were one or other it could be better optimized.
I'm not even about to try and "justify" E85, I agree with you as it is currently produced.
However, the energy per gallon is not the same thing as the HP created by the engine in question. I agree with you that the E85 has less energy per gallon, but as you hinted...it's all about the tune. It takes more E85 to get that HP, hence the lower MPG, I'm not saying the marginal gain doesnt come with an added expense. But it is there. From what I've noted in reviews an E85 engine with a proper tune to utilize it, will usually put out more HP than the same engine optimized for E10. But hey, if you want dyno slips....I'm outta luck.
Really though, what incentive does GM have to lie about a number that makes sense if you think about it. All kinds of engines make insane HP from similar alcohol fuels all the time. Curious....What is the margin of error for a good dyno? You said those numbers were within that margin, the 2.2 eco gets 8 FtLbs more TQ with E85. Thats better than a 5% gain, how innaccurate are dynos exactly?
ftr, the numbers were quoted from Car and Driver....but I'm sure you are right, they ultimately came from GM.
It simply does not produce as much energy and those minute "gains" are within a margin of error. Those figures come from gm not an independant correct? E85 benefits farmers, and well thats it. Its more expensive if not govt subsidized and if a car is flex fuel it is comprimised to use regular or e-85 if it were one or other it could be better optimized.
I'm not even about to try and "justify" E85, I agree with you as it is currently produced.
However, the energy per gallon is not the same thing as the HP created by the engine in question. I agree with you that the E85 has less energy per gallon, but as you hinted...it's all about the tune. It takes more E85 to get that HP, hence the lower MPG, I'm not saying the marginal gain doesnt come with an added expense. But it is there. From what I've noted in reviews an E85 engine with a proper tune to utilize it, will usually put out more HP than the same engine optimized for E10. But hey, if you want dyno slips....I'm outta luck.
Really though, what incentive does GM have to lie about a number that makes sense if you think about it. All kinds of engines make insane HP from similar alcohol fuels all the time. Curious....What is the margin of error for a good dyno? You said those numbers were within that margin, the 2.2 eco gets 8 FtLbs more TQ with E85. Thats better than a 5% gain, how innaccurate are dynos exactly?
ftr, the numbers were quoted from Car and Driver....but I'm sure you are right, they ultimately came from GM.
Last edited:
I know that my 05 Ford Explorer w/4.0 SOHC Flex Fuel V6 is peppier on E85. I believe Ford claims a 10% increase in power when running E85 over 87 Octane. My MPG lowers between 2-3MPG when running it though. But last time I used it it was $1.99 for E85 vs. $2.69 for 87 Octane.
- Status
Similar threads
