E-85. I think I'm a convert.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
85
Location
SE Michigan, USA
I normally avoided this stuff like the plague. I used to travel a lot for work and I usually did my driving at night when open gas stations in the boonies were few and far between. I needed all the range I could get.

Now I stay around home and a nearby BP started carrying E-85 priced 60 cents below the cheap stuff. I gave it a shot and the Tahoe seems to like it.

I just finished a tank so the computer should be calibrated by now so I will start the MPG logs. The current price spread is 90 cents per gallon and I plan to stick with for awhile.

E-85 pump has a decal warning not to use additives but I wonder if I need to worry about top cylinder lubrication or the fuel pump.

Any thoughts?
 
Originally Posted By: Grebbler

Any thoughts?


Yeah, the price of food will double again if more corn is pushed into the fuel market and out of the feed market. In the long run we will all pay more for this folly. Plus you get worse MPGs anyway.
 
Dang...cheap gas got even cheaper...I envy you so much guys.

Fact - Around here lots of cars are converted to LPG due to hi gas price and they are running just fine even after 7-8 years, now the LPG compared to your E85 is bone dry and doing nada for top cylinder lubrication.

If your car is a flex fuel one and you get more miles/$ from E85 I would stick with that.
 
who cares, it's E-85! lol what about oil changes, some manufactures recommend short oci when running the E-85 stuff.
Worried about your fuel pump, that vintage GM truck chassis has wonky pumps that would crater rather soon/easily. The BEST advise I have for you regarding your fuel pump is to NEVER let it run below 1/4 tank as the pump is submerged in fuel to keep cool and to change your fuel filter based on the severe change interval. Back pressure can kill a weak/marginal GM pump quickly. You want to keep that filter changed to reduce back pressure. I have changed Many pumps on a 97 Z71 and an 05 Z71 with a 5.3.
 
Last edited:
Can you run E85 in a 02 Tahoe? Im assuming your talking about the Tahoe in your sig. I ran it in my truck and got such bad mileage it wasnt worth the cheaper price.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any fuel with ethonal will drop the milage. It is obvious that the op bought into the hype.
 
Yea I knew Id get less mileage but it dropped it to about 10. I usually run around 17 with 87 octane regular no lead.
 
Originally Posted By: Grebbler
I normally avoided this stuff like the plague. I used to travel a lot for work and I usually did my driving at night when open gas stations in the boonies were few and far between. I needed all the range I could get.

Now I stay around home and a nearby BP started carrying E-85 priced 60 cents below the cheap stuff. I gave it a shot and the Tahoe seems to like it.

I just finished a tank so the computer should be calibrated by now so I will start the MPG logs. The current price spread is 90 cents per gallon and I plan to stick with for awhile.

E-85 pump has a decal warning not to use additives but I wonder if I need to worry about top cylinder lubrication or the fuel pump.

Any thoughts?


I'd read this: http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html
 
I drive the same route 3 times per week on highway...146 miles round trip. I Set the cruise control when I hit I-40 so for probably 130 miles i'm on the cruise control.

My Escalade with 6.2L V8
On 100% gas I get 18.4 mpg
On 10% ethanol I get 15.7 mpg
On E85 I get 13.2 mpg

I only run 100% gas now after doing the test for a month...even wrote my congressman a letter with the full supportive documentation. Heard nothing back.

I still don't understand the governments thinking of how getting less gas mileage saves fuel.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
So less 25% in gas price up front but 30-40% worse mileage?whats the point?
exactly. It actually costs more in the end because of how much more is required to get you around.
I certainly understand,and would use it myself if it the end result saved me money however in this case it costs more per mile than gasoline so at the end of the day you have less money in your pocket.
My hemi for example. I couldn't get an more than 15mpg with regular fuel in the tank but premium(100% gasoline)consistently got me 20 or more mpg. My commute is 30 miles each way on the flatest roads you ever drove and I track every tanks mileage. I very rarely do any city driving in it.
Anyways it cost 10 cents a litre so roughly 40 cents a gallon more which is roughly 10% more per fill up to get 25% better mileage. So in my case the added expense pays off.
If I did nothing but nothing but city miles my mileage dips to 10-12 mpg and never really changed no matter which grade fuel was in it,so the added expense nets no reward so there would really be no point in my case to use premium if all my miles we city miles and I'd just use regular.
Getting 6000 pounds moving is much more difficult than keeping it moving.
So if that is also the case in the op's situation then I understand using e85 however in this case I'd track a few tanks to be sure.
Are we talking about an 02 silverado?
We're they even flex fuel equipped then? If they aren't then there would be absolutely no benefit using it. The ecu will not ad timing nor compensate with enough fuel and there is potentially a risk of engine damage because the ecu will not recognize it being an oxygenated fuel and tuning won't be accurate for that high alcohol content.
If it is a flex fuel vehicle then rock on.
Put tc-w3 in with fuel.
 
Originally Posted By: Jocephus
My Escalade with 6.2L V8
On 100% gas I get 18.4 mpg
On 10% ethanol I get 15.7 mpg
On E85 I get 13.2 mpg

I only run 100% gas now after doing the test for a month...even wrote my congressman a letter with the full supportive documentation. Heard nothing back.


One highway, zero city. Just kidding. No, I totally agree with you and hope your congressman listens to the input. I think fuel should be anywhere from E0 to E10. We should only burn stale expiring grain stocks as auto fuel.

Except if it's GMO; then it's safer to burn it than have anyone or anything eat it.
 
Originally Posted By: Jocephus


I still don't understand the governments thinking of how getting less gas mileage saves fuel.


They know it doesn't.

However, the agricorps that own a lot of senators and congressmen are pretty influential. They want to sell 100% of their corn and drive the demand up.

Pretty simple.
 
Originally Posted By: Jocephus


My Escalade with 6.2L V8
On 100% gas I get 18.4 mpg
On 10% ethanol I get 15.7 mpg
On E85 I get 13.2 mpg



Interesting results.
With 10% ethanol, the math says you should see about a 3% decline in fuel use as the ethanol BTUs are about 70% of gasoline BTUs.
I wonder if they are slipping in more than 10% ethanol?
 
Originally Posted By: Danno

With 10% ethanol, the math says you should see about a 3% decline in fuel use as the ethanol BTUs are about 70% of gasoline BTUs.
I wonder if they are slipping in more than 10% ethanol?


Good catch, it looks like they probably are.

That E10 only seems to be doing 85% of the work of the E0 as opposed to the 97% expected. That'd seem to be too large a difference due to measurement error. Unless there was some big headwinds/tailwinds affecting those fuel readings.

Hope you can collect more data and get to the bottom of this.
 
Grebbler, let us know what the results are. Not just miles per gallon, but also $ per mile. It should be easy math.
 
Originally Posted By: 95busa
Would you rather pay a farmer or a haji? Easy question for this guy.
Most of the money made by ethanol isn't paid to the farmer. He barely gets what it takes to grow the crop. The huge corps are making the money supplying proprietary seed, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, equipment, fuel, financing, etc. And of course the farmers get none of value added profit once the corn leaves the farm. And where do you think the farmer gets all the diesel to run those huge machines. You argument is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: 95busa
Would you rather pay a farmer or a haji? Easy question for this guy.
Most of the money made by ethanol isn't paid to the farmer. He barely gets what it takes to grow the crop. The huge corps are making the money supplying proprietary seed, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, equipment, fuel, financing, etc. And of course the farmers get none of value added profit once the corn leaves the farm. And where do you think the farmer gets all the diesel to run those huge machines. You argument is flawed.

Part of the bit that does go to the farmer pays him for the devaluation of his land as the soil slowly gets depleted of the more beneficial and trace minerals, and in most cases to varying extent, the addition of chemicals into the soil, from herbicides to the fluoride containing pesticides. Then there's the issue of drawing and depleting the groundwater in parts of the country where water isn't abundant.

Depleting our farmers land for some small net energy positive btu gain is not good over the long term and it should definitely no longer be subsidized. Burn stale grain excess stockpiles and leave it at that.

What Shell is doing, nat. gas to liquids refining, makes much more sense. There's a huge amount of gas just being flared to waste in the Bakken fields.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top