Doe anyone run E-85 on a Regular basis?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Natural gas doesn't fit the narrative so it's better to burn it off rather than use it. Renewable bro.

Something I hadn't thought of. When talking of trains you're talking about GE. Trains may not be safer than pipelines but it's better for GE's bottom line.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
shannow, clevy, stevesrt8,

Its not about whether a chevy distributor rotates counter clockwise or clockwise.

The point is, in a pinch anything can run on E85. You guys can walk when the oil embargo hits like the other stubborn old geezers.


The point? I think that was lost long ago, man. In this country we won't have to worry, as we have lotso oil and other fuel ideas, and folks are waking up to the facts about national security and energy production, etc.

And you may want to re-read my post. It was actually somewhat supportive of your "shade tree" tune up...
 
Originally Posted By: kaboom10
OMG a distributor machine. I had a friend that made custom distributors on his. Now my distributor is in a box that has a bunch of wires running to the engine COPs harness.


Yep, if I didn't keep an old street toy truck there would not be a single distributor in a fairly large stable of trucks, cars, and even my boat. Not many have wires to speak of either...
 
Somehow I don't think the necessity of train use was GE's idea.

Originally Posted By: hatt
Something I hadn't thought of. When talking of trains you're talking about GE. Trains may not be safer than pipelines but it's better for GE's bottom line.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
So, I'm not one of those who's crying about using food for fuel. That's a weak argument since farmers do not (and realistically cannot) choose to grow a lower quality, lower priced version of the same product.

And, as you may have noticed, I don't sit and grumble about what "evil" ethanol does to fuel systems or what its emissions impact is. The former is the fault of companies and their disposable equipment (a $100 lawnmower has a shorter shelf life than the fuel, for crying out loud) and the latter is up to automotive engineers to seek a solution.



Yep. Those are very ridiculous arguments. I think ethanol proponents or even a reasonable neutral person stay away from these discussions because of the all out attack dog that come out thinking they'll lose their job as a roughneck or their oil stock will go down. Their anti ethanol arguments are not the most intelligent.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Somehow I don't think the necessity of train use was GE's idea.

Originally Posted By: hatt
Something I hadn't thought of. When talking of trains you're talking about GE. Trains may not be safer than pipelines but it's better for GE's bottom line.

So the people with 70% of the loco market aren't concerned about train usage? I kinda doubt that. Whether or not they're actively trying to kill pipeline projects I have no idea. I do know GE is in bed with the current admin, who isn't big on pipelines.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Also note that a lot of the oil is being moved by train, tell me again how this is safer than a pipeline?

My city has a refinery. I'm aware of the use of trains in that.
wink.gif
I never said it was safer. As it stands now, we move what we have with what we got, I guess.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I think ethanol proponents or even a reasonable neutral person stay away from these discussions because of the all out attack dog that come out thinking they'll lose their job as a roughneck or their oil stock will go down. Their anti ethanol arguments are not the most intelligent.

There certainly are valid arguments against ethanol. But there are valid arguments against gasoline, cars, eating meat, whatever you can imagine. In the end, flexibility is the answer. Ethanol isn't useless from an energy perspective. Neither is gasoline, natural gas, propane, the wind, the sun, coal, and nuclear power. But we're certainly not in the position to place all our eggs in one basket.

Even perfectly clean electricity with plenty of capacity that might make electric cars attractive has its issues. The distribution network goes down, and everything goes down with it. One big drought clobbers ethanol production for a season. Transportation problems cause issues with petroleum distribution.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Natural gas doesn't fit the narrative so it's better to burn it off rather than use it.


It's gotta cost a fortune to convert a car to CNG. I'd rather not drive around with high pressure gas bottles in my car, but if it came down to it, I would.

Not to be so obstinate as some.

Ethanol is a no cost option for me that works right now. Just turn a few screws.
 
Natural gas is a fine option, but it has its limitations like everything else. I'm not worried about the tanks in the least. I'd be more worried about reduced range. A lot of city buses here run on it, and given that they go to the shop every night (where they can refill them), it's not an issue. Myself, I wouldn't want to go on a long road trip in a CNG car.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm not worried about the tanks in the least.


I am. A little.

Side%20view%20van%20121-500px.jpg


http://depts.washington.edu/vehfire/hybridalternative/hybridalternative12b.html

Did you read the link you posted? 20 year old technology that wasn't properly maintained.
Quote:
Conclusions:

There is no evidence that this cylinder type or model is unsafe if properly installed and maintained.
The cylinder failed through weakening caused by external corrosion.
The corrosion was probably caused by exposure to hot exhaust gases from a leaking exhaust system.
The corrosion would have been readily apparent on visual inspection.
The cylinder would have been condemned if inspected by a qualified person.


Aren't CNG tanks these days fiberglass? And why would I retrofit a car? Put CNG as an option in new cars. And then make them duel fuel. With a house connection and compressor. This doesn't have to be hard.


Here we go. It's missing the built in house connection but it's start.
1381952117007-CNGBiFuelChevyImpalaReveal01.jpg
 
Last edited:
As an aside, I drove a Ford van for a decade with a propane tank under the body way back in the 70's. We hit many things, even had a serious accident, and never had an issue.
 
I'm ok with compressed gases. But, they're not for my vette or trans am.

Ethanol is. Any gasoline engine can run E85. Engines not designed for it will still run fine at low and partial throttle. And its really hard for me to believe designers didn't build 30% margin in fuel injector duty. The trick is to run a higher fuel pressure.

So if there was ever a problem getting gas this would be a good alternative to walking.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As an aside, I drove a Ford van for a decade with a propane tank under the body way back in the 70's. We hit many things, even had a serious accident, and never had an issue.
We had a Maverick and a Ford van that ran off LP gas back in the day. Never a problem. LPG and CNG are probably safer than gasoline. A ruptured gasoline system pools while LPG and CNG quickly dissipated into the atmosphere.
 
e85 is 2.79 here. Premium is 3.99.

With tuning, my truck makes about the same power with either fuel. I lose about 1.5/mpg with e85, but with the cost difference, it's worth it.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I am. A little.

Poor inspection is an issue, but I see much more frequent problems with gasoline cars burning down due to fueling issues. Propane has had so few issues as to be laughable. Gasoline tanks need some regular inspections, if you ask me.

And of course, LPG or CNG isn't for your Vette or Trans Am. To get a decent sized LPG tank would require a lot of butchery, and the CNG setup would be worse, with less range.
 
Actually Beanoil...with all due respect see this website

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2013.shtml

According to these tests your Dodge Caravan probably gets 30% less mileage on E-85 vs. E-0 (Reg. UL)

Considering the "Energy-Mileage-Penalty"...E-85 would have to be priced at about $2.89 to equal the $3.98 E-0 Reg. UL grade you mention (on a BTU basis). With a 15 gallon fill you are spending about an extra $7.50/fill to get the same number of BTUs. It's all about the number and cost of the BTUs you put in your tank since mileage and cost/mile is proportional to energy content.

See what these people have done. These FuelCOG people have an app which takes the guess work out of this while standing at the pump. It works and it's accurate. I've used it. If interested go to www.fuelcog.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top