CAFE only counts the Gasoline not the ethanol.

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Real car guys want to burn alcohol to go faster. We don't care about politics of it.


But you do care about the politics, the various hate names that you have used with people of opposing POV over the last couple years.

As to "go faster", look at the links I posted previously...

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html

E85 flex fuel tahoe was slower on E85.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/ethan...0205-1ahgx.html

Quote:
Still, the E85-fuelled car proved 0.3 seconds quicker in the sprint to 100km/h compared with the E10 Commodore. As expected, the car running premium unleaded was quicker again (by 0.3 seconds), suggesting it's the fuel of choice if performance is your goal.


Both the US and the Oz case, the cost of travelling was considerably more using E85 in $ per mile, not just MPG.

Like I said, you need to go and talk to the guys at GM, how you get more power and the same mileage...they need help...

Not just CAFE saying a flex fuel tahoe gets 90MPG.

 

[hatt]

Quote:
OK some farmers are making some good money.


I'd like to see the evidence of that.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Real car guys want to burn alcohol to go faster. We don't care about politics of it.


But you do care about the politics, the various hate names that you have used with people of opposing


You mean redneck? People think redneck is a race. That's really dumb.

Don't even bother with your links. You know what I think of your links. Car guys like playing with e85. You intend to deprive us of that pleasure because of some displaced sense of rightand wrong? Your view on power production is the same. You don't want anything new. Any change is a threat to your sense of well being.

Its getting really tiresome.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm getting really tiresome.


I'll agree with that. You just come on here, spew half-truths and outright bull, ignore and deflect actual questions to stuff you say, and then post more bull. I think you're making up 80+% of what you post.

Useless.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm getting really tiresome.


I'll agree with that. You just come on here, spew half-truths and outright bull, ignore and deflect actual questions to stuff you say, and then post more bull. I think you're making up 80+% of what you post.

Useless.


You're a knat flying around my head. I have no way or desire to communicate with you.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not just CAFE saying a flex fuel tahoe gets 90MPG.


Gee, it seems that anything can be politicized...

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You're a knat flying around my head. I have no way or desire to communicate with you.


What's a knat? We don't have knats here in the Midwest, must be something out east.

You see, the thing is I don't really have enough knowledge to call you out directly, I only worked in the power generation industry for three summers as an intern when I was in college. So while I have some knowledge (plus what I got in my thermodynamics courses in school), I don't have quite enough to call bull like Shannow does. But I can tell you it doesn't quite seem right, the things you post seem either copied from random websites or just made up from a little bit of knowledge.

And we don't have to communicate, I'm just calling you out is all. Like a warning to others.

 

[CBODY67]

Originally Posted By: shanneba
Keep in mind E85 may have anywhere from 53% - 83% ethnanol.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e85_specs.html
D5798-11 Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends
for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines

Ethanol Content, vol% D5501 51-83
Methanol, vol% D5501 0.5, maximum


This fact was mentioned in a story a hot rod car magazine did about 2 years ago when they dyno'd an engine spec'd for E85. The only TRUE E85 fuel, as they mentioned, was Rocket Racing Fuel's E85 racing fuel.

 

[CBODY67]

I guess y'all realize that when you use more "flexfuel" to travel a mile, you're paying more taxes/mile using that fuel? Doesn't matter if it's E10, E15, or E85 . . . more gallons used = more gasoline taxes paid.

In the DFW area, E85 prices can vary widely! The E85FuelPrice website indicates that graphically. Generally, E85's about 20-30cents/gallon less money, but sometimes, E85 is more than E10.

Whenever we got E10 to replace the prior RFG, which replaced E0, we did NOT see any price differences with the additional ethanol in the blend.

Being that ethanol is "splash blended" at the fuel terminal, it sets-up some things for more ethanol in one load than another. An area BMW dealer found out when that happened, when BMWs suddenly started having failed fuel pump modules, then traced it down to which station's fuel caused the problem.

In addition to the www.afdc.energy.gov station maps, I found a map in the back of the Exxon and/or Mobil website which detailed which fuel was being sold where in the USA. Usually in the ozone non-attainment areas. It was quite interesting. That was several years ago. A Google search might find them again?

CBODY67

 

[TiredTrucker]

And the point is what? The additional taxes because of using more fuel with something like E85 only means something if the fuel prices are such that it is actually costing more to use the E85. If one is getting, say 20 mpg on regular non ethanol at, say, $2 a gallon, the cost is going to be 10 cents a mile. If they are loosing 4 mpg (at the far end of of the scale as many see less mpg loss) getting 16 mpg on E85, at say, $1.45 a gallon (which I have seen recently), their cost per mile is 9 cents. So while they are indeed using more fuel, and subsequently, paying more fuel taxes to the gooberment, their actual cost to use the fuel is 1 cent a mile lower. So who really gives a rip if they are paying more in fuel taxes, their overall out of pocket cost is lower.

Now those prices are not everywhere, for sure, but they are in some places. In my area, ethanol free runs about 30 cents a gallon more than E10. The slight fuel loss someone might see using E10 as opposed to non ethanol will still have the cost per mile lower. So while it is true the gooberment is getting more taxes over more fuel use, the consumer is not necessarily short changed in the deal.

Each area of the country is different.

 

[Garak]

What causes this price differential, though? Is it naturally in the market there, or is someone subsidizing the price of ethanol?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well, all commodities like gas, diesel, ethanol, propane, etc are traded on the commodities markets. So their price is set by them. Now states will play their silly little games and charge different fuel taxes on different fuels. Even the Feds have different gas tax than diesel tax. And retailers play their little games as well. There really is no excuse as to why ethanol free gasoline should be 30 cents a gallon on average higher than E10 in my area, given the current market price of the fuels. But it is. I am convinced that someone is taking advantage of the ethanol paranoia crowd and pricing the ethanol free higher because of it. It has nothing to do with availability in my area, as we have ethanol free regular and premium available at multiple outlets all year long. But the state and federal fuel tax is the same. At least on the surface. Who knows what is going on that we don't see.

And one has to account for delivery costs included in the price. For folks like me in corn and ethanol central, pricing is pretty close to market. For those that ethanol has to be transported further, the price is going to be higher because of it. I am in trucking. I don't deliver anything for free, and neither do the railroads.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Real car guys want to burn alcohol to go faster. We don't care about politics of it.


But you do care about the politics, the various hate names that you have used with people of opposing


You mean redneck? People think redneck is a race. That's really dumb.

Don't even bother with your links. You know what I think of your links. Car guys like playing with e85. You intend to deprive us of that pleasure because of some displaced sense of rightand wrong? Your view on power production is the same. You don't want anything new. Any change is a threat to your sense of well being.

Its getting really tiresome.

You're getting really tiresome, jack.

 

[BreakerBreaker]

Merry Christmas fellas.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
And the point is what? The additional taxes because of using more fuel with something like E85 only means something if the fuel prices are such that it is actually costing more to use the E85. If one is getting, say 20 mpg on regular non ethanol at, say, $2 a gallon, the cost is going to be 10 cents a mile. If they are loosing 4 mpg (at the far end of of the scale as many see less mpg loss) getting 16 mpg on E85, at say, $1.45 a gallon (which I have seen recently), their cost per mile is 9 cents. So while they are indeed using more fuel, and subsequently, paying more fuel taxes to the gooberment, their actual cost to use the fuel is 1 cent a mile lower. So who really gives a rip if they are paying more in fuel taxes, their overall out of pocket cost is lower.

Now those prices are not everywhere, for sure, but they are in some places. In my area, ethanol free runs about 30 cents a gallon more than E10. The slight fuel loss someone might see using E10 as opposed to non ethanol will still have the cost per mile lower. So while it is true the gooberment is getting more taxes over more fuel use, the consumer is not necessarily short changed in the deal.

Each area of the country is different.



I would think it's better to pay more fuel taxes. It doesn't cost the consumer any additional money and the state gets more money for their roads. It's a win win for everybody involved and keeps us from the mercy of OPEC by having alternative home grown fuels.

 

[javacontour]

Right now, E85 is $0.50-0.60/gallon MORE than E10 87 AKI.

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
And the point is what? The additional taxes because of using more fuel with something like E85 only means something if the fuel prices are such that it is actually costing more to use the E85. If one is getting, say 20 mpg on regular non ethanol at, say, $2 a gallon, the cost is going to be 10 cents a mile. If they are loosing 4 mpg (at the far end of of the scale as many see less mpg loss) getting 16 mpg on E85, at say, $1.45 a gallon (which I have seen recently), their cost per mile is 9 cents. So while they are indeed using more fuel, and subsequently, paying more fuel taxes to the gooberment, their actual cost to use the fuel is 1 cent a mile lower. So who really gives a rip if they are paying more in fuel taxes, their overall out of pocket cost is lower.

Now those prices are not everywhere, for sure, but they are in some places. In my area, ethanol free runs about 30 cents a gallon more than E10. The slight fuel loss someone might see using E10 as opposed to non ethanol will still have the cost per mile lower. So while it is true the gooberment is getting more taxes over more fuel use, the consumer is not necessarily short changed in the deal.

Each area of the country is different.

 

[TiredTrucker]

For your particular area, that might be true. But I have seen E85 in Illinois cheaper than E10 in several areas. Even then, it might not be cost effective. The spread has to be, generally, 50 cents or more in favor of E85.

Even so, I have been primarily using E15 for a while. Very similar mpg as from E10, yet costing about 10 cents a gallon less. And about 40 cents less per gallon than ethanol free. The E85 in my area, while cheaper, the spread in price is not good enough right now to justify using it. When gas was higher priced like a couple of years ago, it was typical to see E10 and E85 price spreads of up to $1 a gallon cheaper for E85. All I used was E85 at that time.

 

[fdcg27]

You are the voice of reason in this thread.
You aren't talking hypothesis based upon known differences in energy content nor are you trying to pursue some theoretical gain in performance potential.
You're simply using the known impact of higher ethanol content fuel in your vehicle as you use it to determine what prices of the various blends available to you yield the lowest fuel cost per mile of operation.
Seems sensible to me.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You are the voice of reason in this thread.
You aren't talking hypothesis based upon known differences in energy content nor are you trying to pursue some theoretical gain in performance potential.
You're simply using the known impact of higher ethanol content fuel in your vehicle as you use it to determine what prices of the various blends available to you yield the lowest fuel cost per mile of operation.
Seems sensible to me.


When I owned a 2000 Ford Ranger with the 3.0, I went from 20MPG to about 16. I tried 3-4 tank fulls before giving up on E85.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Yeah, it is a belly drop to see a drop in mpg. That is why I figure benefit, or lack thereof, on a cost per mile. E85 in my 3/4 ton pickup drops about 3 mpg also. It normally will average 14-15 but on E85 it is at 11-12. But E85 is about $1.46 in my area. At the mpg it gives, that is about 13.27 cents a mile cost. With regular E10 at $1.89, the cost is about 13.5 cents a mile. Basically a wash, but the E85 has the edge. If I was using ethanol free regular, which is $2.29 a gallon, the cost would be 15.25 cents a mile, so I don't use that stuff. Not that much of a purist that I am willing to pay more than I have to.