Posted on 09/02/2006 12:54:13 PM PDT by thackney
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Sport-utility loyalists may be four-wheeling through the wrong mud bog if they think ethanol-friendly SUVs will cut gas costs and help the U.S. curb its dependence on foreign oil, according to a Consumer Reports study released Thursday.
The consumer watchdog publication ran a battery of tests on the 2007 Chevy Tahoe flexible-fuel vehicle, which can run on either E85 -- a mixture consisting of 85% ethanol -- or gasoline, and found that the SUV's mileage dropped from 14 mpg to 10 mpg on E85.
The decline could be expected in any flex-fuel vehicle, the report said, because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline.
Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show that ethanol has 75,670 BTUs per gallon instead of 115,400 for gasoline, which means that you would have to burn more fuel to generate the same amount of energy.
So the already expensive fill-up gets even more painful. With E85 costing an average of $2.91 in August, the fuel-economy penalty means drivers are essentially paying almost $4 for the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, the report said.
Another way of looking at it: Consumer Reports found that the Tahoe's driving range decreased to 300 miles on a full tank from 440 on gasoline -- more trips to the pump, if drivers can even find a pump.
Of the 176,000 gas stations in the country, only about 800 sell E85. As it stands now, most people can't realistically use those pumps because they're primarily located in Midwest corn country, where the ethanol is produced. Reasons for the scarcity range from stricter regulations in some states to difficulty in shipping the fuel.
But Ron Lamberty, the head of market development at the American Coalition for Ethanol, said there's much more to the story than just saving a few bucks.
"If you're concerned about emissions, you should use E85," he said. "If you want to make sure the money you spend is circulated through the American economy rather than some South American or Middle Eastern country, the choice is E85."
Even the assertion that ethanol is costlier isn't necessarily true in the long run, he pointed out. For one thing, lower BTU in ethanol means less heat, which translates to longer engine life, he explained. Also, if converting current pumps was allowed, it would take only a couple months before the alternative fuel was available from coast to coast.
"If you're buying a flex-fuel vehicle for the cheapest fuel, you can have the cheapest fuel," he said. "When gas is cheaper, you can use gas, and when E85 is cheaper, you can use that."
Even more dependent
One of the primary motivations for the build-out of ethanol is that it will ease the nation's dependence on oil from the Middle East and help the U.S. move away from sucking up nonrenewable resources. But there's a wrinkle in that logic.
Despite the difficulty of finding E85 pumps, the Big Three have built more than 5 million flex-fuel vehicles since the late 1990, with that number increasing by about 1 million this year, Consumer Reports forecast.
The government credits vehicles that can run on E85 with about two-thirds more fuel economy than they actually get using gasoline, even though they may never run on E85. For example, the two-wheel drive version of the Tahoe used in the study would normally be rated at 21 mpg. But because it can run on E85, it earns a 35 mpg credit.
That rule helps automakers build more gas-quaffing trucks than they otherwise would be allowed to do under Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules. The net effect, according to a study by the Union for Concerned Scientists, is that the annual gasoline consumption in the U.S. has risen by about 1%, or 1.2 billion gallons. Lamberty contends that some of the blame falls on the consumer.
"The automakers and the government aren't forcing people to keep buying these bigger vehicles in the face of rising gas prices," he said.
While General Motors and Ford build these to comply with the regulations, he said hopefully it means there will be enough a critical mass of vehicles so that it makes sense for petroleum marketers to spend money to build the pumps.
"It's the ultimate chicken and egg discussion," he said.
It has nothing to do with advertising. It is all about the Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers.
Auto makers must have a fleet average of more than 27 mpg. Therefore, if they sell a car that gets 20 mpg, they have to sell one that gets 35 to balance that out. With these rules, the Tahoe qualifies as a vehicle getting 35mpg in the eyes of the EPA. So, a Tahoe helps them get their average up, even though it gets pretty bad mileage.
A ZPM! Why didn't I think of that, S?
http://www.answers.com/topic/zero-point-module
".. engine lives longer.."
I doubt it....actual engine temp is controlled by the coolant thermostat........which must be calibrated high enough for use of gasoline, which is a LOT hotter these days than it was 25 years ago, i.e. no more 160 or 180 degree questions at the parts stores......
Time wise they live longer. They do less work.
Duh.
Can you give us some numbers rather than words such as "a lot more power" and "a whole lot further"?
This should say: If you want to spend a lot of American wealth to lower the price of Arabian oil for poor countries like China, the choice is E85.
We can afford high oil prices much better than the Chinese. We shouldn't help their economy and wealth at our great expense.
Since ethanol costs more per gallon than gas, we will be paying more for watered down gas.
Another wonderful side effect of which I haven't heard much discussion: carburated engines do not like 10% ethanol. Lots of outboard motors are carburated. I've spent more time than I want fiddling with the idle and lean adjustments, trying to keep from stalling while not planing at "idle". I watched some poor guy try to motor his sailboat away from his mooring, and have the outboard die repeatedly. He ended up drifting into several other moored boats while he tried to restart the outboard. He finally got the mainsail up, and managed to sail out of the mooring field, but it didn't look like much fun.
A lot of older power boats have built in tanks with fittings that aren't designed for E-10. The choice is rip out the tanks, (expensive) or wait for that fine day when the boat goes up in a ball of fire from the gas leaking into the bilge (life threatening, and even more expensive). Maybe it'll just be easier to torch it off yourself, and collect the insurance.
Who is ethanol supposed to help besides ADM and Cargill?
The politicians re-election funds.
Because Archer-Daniels-Midland gave more money to politicians than you did.
Hmmm, let's see. Ethanol is inefficient and gums up your engine and hybrids can only survive with a $6000 per car government subsidy. What next?
I have been running my 2002 Yukon on 10%(ethanol)mixture.That is what we are being sold on New England.I have made a number of reuns to Vermont,and I've not noticed a reduction in MPG.
And, if you want to make sure the world's poor starve, make your fuel from corn.
A fact often overlooked by most everyone.
Don't confuse the dreamers with the hard facts! They "have a dream".........
At 10% you won't, at 85% you definetly will!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.