Posted on 05/27/2008 9:03:13 AM PDT by Incorrigible
Cars with turbos could take advantage of the additional octane by cranking down the waste gate to increase the boost.
And cosponsored by the Deptartment of Energy.
10 percent of gasoline is Ethanol.
Lower miles per gallon with Ethanol.
Government gets TAXES on the Ethanol, for every gallon of the mixture that is sold.
Good deal for the government.
Bad deal for the ordinary person.
It was cosponsored by the DOE.
And it’s also more credible than the article.
That’s even worse.
Those taxes are offset by the blender tax credit.
Serves 'em right for buying into such a stupid energy "solution". It takes more energy to produce ethano than we get out of it. Kind of like making a dime that costs fifty cents to make...
No Surprise: E85 Is a Bummer in Fuel Economy
We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.
We tested acceleration using both fuels and our standard procedures, then we measured fuel economy at steady speeds of 30, 50, and 70 mph around a 2.5-mile oval test track, three runs at each speed that were averaged to produce the numbers you see in the accompanying charts. The fuel-economy results were calculated using the vehicle’s onboard computer.
We began the test with the Tahoe running on E85 fuel and later drove the SUV until its tank was as empty as we dared, and in that way we were able to flush the tank of almost all the ethanol. Then we refilled the tank with regular gasoline and repeated our procedures. All testing was done in two-wheel-drive mode. The results are shown here.
Differences in acceleration times were insignificant (although GM says E85 improves horsepower by as much as three percent). On the downside, the fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA’s numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.
Serves 'em right for buying into such a stupid energy "solution". It takes more energy to produce ethano than we get out of it. Kind of like making a dime that costs fifty cents to make...
Anybody know what E10 is selling for compared to unleaded in Oregon? Just like to know much much more the citizenry is getting screwed in addition to their decrease in mileage.
I hard some NY Congressman tell Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman (ie. Dilbert) that in upper NY they are buying E85 for all of their public vehicles and they were paying $1.73 a gallon. I would have thrown something at my TV if it werent such a brilliant Mitsubishi 73 inch 1080p which makes even C-SPAN compelling to watch (and it makes the newsbabes on Fox Biz Channel look even better).
If I could buy E85 for $1.73, even I would be stockpiling it. But the last time I was in Missouri and filled up my rental car, the E85 was the same price as 93 octane unleaded.
Agree with the 'does or does not lie" part, but;
My fifty year old speedometer is ten percent off;
But, if 65 is really 58.5 then 55 is really 49.5 - still ten percent.
Hard for me to believe that a computerized mileage read out, even if not accurate, would not also be fairly proportional across the board.
Lower is still lower - conclusion is not at risk.
Here is the full report of the study.
I just called a customer to inform him that he needs a $150.00 carburetor ruined by setting for several months withwater and sour gasoline in the carburetor; since the main body of the carb is made of plastiv and is now all gummed up and corrosion has formed on the ramain white metal, a rebuild is out of the question.
Some of the water found in the bowl is due to phase separation, some to condensation and the remainder due to being abandoned outsida when it failed to run.
Alcohol is good to get drunk on and for specially built race car engines but damaging as auto fuel for the common car.
If we had to start buying fuel by the pound instead of the gallon we would better appreciate the difference.
We’ve had 10% ethanol in our gas for decades.
I still get 36 mpg in my Corolla.
I’ve made no claims that E85 gets better mileage. I’m talking about studies done on E20-E40.
Jack the car up, set the throttle at 2,000 RPM and let it burn one gallon of each against a stop watch while powering a 1,000W boom box and get back to me after you’ve tested all 15 blends.
Read the label more closely; the red bottle is propanol, the yllow bottle is methanol - both can absorb an additional 10-20% water depending on the raw product’s being previously exposed to the air.
That article deals with all sorts of issues that differ from the article of the thread. We’re talking strictly about mileage here. I’m making the case to counter the article that ethanol in all situations reduces fuel economy. Studies have show that in some situations it doesn’t.
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.