Wires

In Canada we get shafted on every front, so pay close to the same for E85 or dino fuel. I'm not sure the volume difference though. I know MPG drops ~25%, so I'm "assuming" you would need 25% more fuel in to get the same power back (but don't quote me on that).

blchandl2

Most "gas" available in the US contains 10% - 15% ethanol. This was mandated by the feds. My daughter worked at a marina that sold "no ethanol" gas for boat engines that have not been updated for fuels containing ethanol. It was almost $1 more per gallon. As for E85, the cost savings is lost in the lower fuel economy due to lower energy levels.

KaDeTime

objectivist

E85 requires 30-35% more fuel compared to regular pump fuel. Also most cars from the late 90's onwards can run E85 using their standard fuel lines without any issues at all, even over a period of several years. This of course assumes you have an ECU capable of being tuned to the suit the fuel, and have correctly sized and E85 suitable fuel pumps and injectors.

The only issue that can arise are blocked filters. OEM paper filters can become gummed up, these should be replaced with stainless steel mesh based filters. Also there are other precautions that need to be taken in terms of managing your use of the fuel, given that E85 is hygroscopic.

KaDeTime

spindlewood

This is the main reason I stick to non ethanol fuel. I pay a 44 cent per gallon premium for it but gain most of it back in better mileage. The cleaner burning argument seems to forget all the negative impacts of production as well (competition with food chain, uses more energy to make then we get from it).

Ethanol isn't a sustainable solution, it gets worse mpg (and therefore range), and it is hygroscopic - I don't really get the appeal or benefit.

objectivist

Agreed, the benefit is really only there for more modified cars where it can make a huge different to performance where you can run more boost, more aggressive timing, run you engine cooler and more safety, etc.

farmerjones

As a corn farmer and car enthusiast I find the miss-information bewildering, and sometimes infuriating to be honest about ethanol. The corn we crow in the midwest is NOT used for human consumption, it is used to feed animals. Even before ethanol existed the corn we grew was used to feed animals primarily. NOW we make ethanol....and the leftover byproduct (called DDG, dried distiller grain)feeds livestock. DDGs are crazy-nutritious for animals. So NOW we make fuel, AND we feed animals. Talk about efficient and farmers working towards sustainable practices. We are the envy of many countries around the world for being able to produce livestock feed and fuel from the same crop, creating dual use that hugely reduces our "carbon footprint" as farmers.

I'll refrain from making comments on the other misconceptions listed here but lets at least get 2 facts straight about ethanol: The corn used in ethanol was NEVER going to be used for human consumption (never has been in history) AND the leftovers are still used to feed livestock. We are not staring someone in Africa (or America) because of ethanol...we don't crow the type of corn that goes in a can.

Oh, and fact 3.....anything over E15 used in a non-felxfuel E85-approved vehicle WILL damage your engine in the long run.....IT'S PRINTED RIGHT IN YOUR OWNERS MANUAL....no exceptions to any engine for any brand. You void your warranty if you do as well.

farmerjones

As someone that farms and raises corn, PLEASE understand the corn grown all over the midwest used to make ethanol is NOT competing with the food chain....the corn grown here has never been used to feed Americans ever in history, it's for livestock feed. And the energy-consumption to make ethanol is dual purposed, because we are producing processed livestock feed AND ethanol fuel simultaneously. When you conciser the dual-production factor it is false that more energy is used to create ethanol than it produces. The figure you quote conveniently leaves out the fact animal feed is simultaneously produced. Energy to process the corn for animal feed was already going to be spent, so using a little more to co-produce ethanol flips the equation to be a very efficient conversion process. Sadly, "big oil" and other groups agains ethanol (because it hurts their profits) has done a great job convincing the public of facts that are only half-truths. As a farmer, it's pretty disheartening. I wish I could have you tour my corn and livestock farm in Iowa, and the show you the ethanol plant 15 miles away. When you have the real process explained the reason ethanol exists as a sustainable fuel comes into focus pretty quickly. Seriously, this ethanol issue is black and white, but politics has muddied the waters to the point few see how it really works. It's sad when farmers like me are trying to contribute to our country by making us energy-independent and providing you quality food to eat. Ethanol is working towards that. Sorry for the rant, but it's such a punch in the face to see ethanol "fake facts" spread around to farmers like myself. End rant. Thanks for indulging me.

katzjamr

I learned a lot from all of you, its one reason why I enjoy this forum, thanks, dave