E/85 Flex Fuel The Documentary called Pump...

[eth555]

2008 Chev 5.3 ran E85 for over 110,000 miles no issues (only a handful tanks of regular) - 2011 GMC 5.3 118,000 Miles on it mostly E85 (only a handful tanks of regular) no problems; 2007 F-150 5.4 92,000 miles no issues running E85 - Wife's 2014 Taurus 26,000miles mostly E85 no problems. Chevrolet and GMC are work trucks, my employer only wants E85 used, so that is why the high usage of E85. I was leary of cold starts on E85 but here in MN and have not had an issue at all with cold starting, and as KubotaToy said you would not know the difference in running. There is a slight mileage reduction so you have to figure cost per mile. Right now at about $0.70 cheaper than $2.20 87 Octane it makes sense. Also nice it is produced locally instead of who know where. MN has had ethanol blended gas for decades and have not had issues.

 

[Copperhead]

I ran E85 most of the time in my 2013 Silverado 1500 5.3L. My current 2015 2500 6.0L is running on E85 now. It averages 2 mpg less on E85, but it also costs 2 cents per mile less to use because of the lower price of E85, at current pricing in my area. Many focus on mpg, but it is the cost per mile that really means something. Like others, I have been using ethanol blends (mostly 10%) since the late 70's / early 80's without a single fuel related problem. In carbureted motors, TBI motors, and port injection motors, everything from a 1974 Pontiac Catalina with a 400 small block, to one of those Chevy LUV pickups, to a 79 Ford Bronco with a 351M, right on up thru what I have today. Including John Deere riding mowers to portable generators. E85 is a great fuel for my flex fuel pickups.

Regarding fuel system components, any vehicle that has a flex fuel engine as an option in the lineup, is getting the same fuel system components even if the motor is not rated for E85 in that lineup. All that needs changed is the ECM coding. I have hauled production auto components to assembly plants for decades, and they are not keeping two different sets of fuel system components on the line. That is inefficient, more costly, and the risk of getting the wrong components in a vehicle is too high. And we haven't even gotten into the mixups in logistics of the wrong components being delivered at the set schedule they are needed on the line. Assembly plants use Just In Time logistics. There is not stacks and stack of components sitting around just waiting for the day they are to be installed. Deliveries are done on production line schedules. A truck has 15 minutes either side of the delivery window to be at the plant. If a line has to be shut down due to parts not showing up on schedule, it costs over $100,000 an hour the line is shut down. Just check with any assembly plant and they will confirm all of this.

 

[drajj5]

I am also intrigued with the use of (different fuels). Have not seen the documentary, but it does sound like vhs/beta or cassette tape/Compact Disc war. Guess someone out there has a product to sell and there is always some similar competition. Typical result is the one with the better product is used - until it is trumped by a new product.

I read somewhere that Fords Model 'T' would run on Moonshine as well as it would burn pump gas. You could advance timing from the seat and adjustments were easily made on the carburetor. My Grandpaw owns a 1918 one and at first glance it looks like a compact car with big wood wheels. Always wanted to drive it as a kid but never got the chance... It now resides in his shed and hasn't been driven in years.

Anyway, I would love to have the money and time to convert a 60's era carbureted vehicle to run on moonshine. Not to see if it would in fact work; but be reliable as well. Guess You would have to mix the fuel as it would burn so clean nothing would lubricate the valves and such. Perhaps a dob of transmission fluid in the tank would help?

Oh well, takes money and lots of free time to experiment with stuff like this.... Unfortunately, I have an abundance of neither.

 

[ModMech]

In order to extract the most benefit from the E85 fuel, the engine and management systems MUST be optimized for E85, most automakers simply modify the vehicle to TOLERATE E85 and therefore economy and performance suffer greatly.

No matter what, there are three truths about E85 that are inescapable: 1) You COST per mile is higher; 2) every gallon of ethanol consumes 8 gallons of WATER for production and 3) almost all ethanol in this country is derived from corn - a STAPLE food for most farm animals.

Methanol is HIGHLY corrosive but easier to produce.

 

[Copperhead]

ModMech, I cannot agree with your 1st contention. Cost per mile is higher.

My 2015 2500HD 6.0L. When on regular, the fuel economy average is around 14.5 mpg for all miles... hauling, empty, off road, in town, rural highways, gravel roads. The cost for the fuel right now, in my area, is $2.37 a gallon. That equates to a per mile fuel cost of roughly 16.3 cents a mile.

When using E85, as it is now, the fuel economy average is roughly 12.7 mpg. E85 in my area is at $1.84 a gallon. that equates to approximately 14.5 cents a mile, or roughly a 2 cent a mile savings.

Lower fuel economy does not equate to higher cost per mile. A common misconception.

As for the food to fuel argument, it shows a myopic view of what goes on in development of animal and poultry feed. The dried distillers grain from corn ethanol production is essential for many feed mixtures. I regularly haul a product called Biolys, which is derived from DDG. It is a very good high protein feed supplement that is critical to swine and poultry production. These products are going to be made irregardless of folks perceptions of ethanol production. It requires ethanol production to enable development of some very important feed stocks. DDG derived feed supplements have a high protein ratio, and have been shown to be highly digestible and reduce the incidents of intestinal colitis in both bovine and swine livestock compared to traditional whole kernel corn feed.

And corn oil from ethanol production is also used as a feed stock for biodiesel production. Two fuels from the same bushel of corn! The CO2 from ethanol production is a primary source of CO2 for the beverage industry and many other industrial CO2 needs.

Now, no, ethanol production does not consume 8 gallons of water for production of 1 gallon of ethanol. It is closer to 3. And regular gasoline fuel production is not far behind, at 2.5 gallons of water to produce a gallon of gasoline. A single can of fruit at the grocery store requires over 9. Just the Sunday newspaper requires a whopping 150 gallons of water! Your desire to save the planet's water resources is misplaced. You need to go beat up on some other water users.

Water Use for Ethanol Production - Ethanol - University of Illinois Extension

I hate to burst your ballon, but your contention that those 3 truths are inescapable, are not complete truths at all. They are contentions based on biases and feelings rather than based on statistical data. I digress.... your last contention, or at least part of it, is correct.... most of the ethanol produced in this country is from corn. Not sure that really is a negative though. I admit, I would like to see more ethanol production from other sources like sugar beets.

And corn prices, on an inflation adjusted basis, are lower than they were in the mid 1990's! There is no shortage of corn for livestock, people, etc. If corn was not being used as a primary stock for ethanol production, the price would be cost prohibitive to grow the stuff at all, and everyone would suffer. Shortages would ensue, and prices would rise to such a level that would negatively impact both human and animal food costs. Ethanol production provides a balance to ensure an adequate supply of grains across the spectrum. Economics is not that hard, but seems to be difficult for some. I recommend a book "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. An easy read with great examples that provide a well rounded education on economics.

Oh, the use or all caps to make the point is only valid if it is a legitimate point.

Something you didn't directly address, but seem apropos to the discussion. Net energy. Ethanol production, from planting of corn to harvest to ethanol, has a net positive energy of 1.34 BTU's of energy to every 1 BTU of energy to make the stuff. Even more dramatic, for every 1 BTU of liquid fuel energy to produce ethanol, again from planting to final ethanol, is 6.34 BTU net energy from ethanol.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

http://www.ne-ethanol.org/pdf/net_energy_balance2009.pdf

 

[woodlandfarms]

Copperhead, you must have watched the doc I mentioned. Your comments were what was the heart of the docu. For me this was the game changer, I was pretty much against ethanol as a fuel source, assuming it was impacting food production. What is sadder is that I come from a farming background and new better about cattle food grains. The doc went on to push the theme about Big Oil manipulating messages.

This is why I posed the question to the group. If a product can move us toward self sufficency in therms of fuel, why not grab a hold of it. Is the message from big oil really overwhelming the truth, and is ethanol the truth, another reason I asked the group for experience.

 

[Copperhead]

No, never watched the doc. First I had heard of it was in this thread. This is just what I have been exposed to directly over the years. The livestock feed thing is my primary dealing with ethanol plants, other than buying ethanol blends for my personal vehicles. I haul feed supplements throughout the midwest, primarily from the Blair, NE biofuels refinery, which is a mind boggling bio operation in its own right.

Big oil plays two different sides. They try to poo poo ethanol, yet at the same time, have their hands in it in a big way. BP, Chevron, and Conoco/Phillips are into ethanol substantially. Shell was probably the first, investing money into ethanol in 2002. Valero purchased 7 ethanol plants several years ago.

A great history read on ethanol as fuel from the early days is here......

Henry Ford, Charles Kettering and the Fuel of the Future |

It will never be a total fuel replacement for motor vehicles. But it is a very viable addition to motor fuels with benefits on several levels. When it first showed up at retail pumps in the 1970's, and called gasohol, I was an early adopter of using it in my vehicles. I have been using various blends ever since with not one incident of ethanol related fuel problems. Even in a 1974 Pontiac Catalina with a carbureted 400 small block that was fed this stuff for most of it's 250,000 mile life. Same for a 1979 Ford Bronco with a carbureted 351M motor, that I owned. I don't even recall seeing or hearing of anyone having a documented problems using the stuff by anyone I have come in direct contact with and could see for myself. Just internet folklore. So, I have often been amazed at the misdirected outrage over ethanol. Of all the things people could expend their outrage on, ethanol seems low on the meter.

At least we don't have to sacrifice American military lives getting the stuff like we have done for oil over the years. And as a veteran who has seen the wanton waste of young men and women in military adventures, that is probably one of the main motivators for me to use high blends of ethanol in my motor vehicles. To me E85 use is not just a sound economic decision, but a principled one. Each person has to make up their own mind and live with it. Just use reason and logic to make the decision.

 

[stoyan79]

Copperhead, cost per mile is lower on E-85 for you, because you are Iowa. This is where corn is made and ethanol plants are plentiful. In most other states E-85 is not as cheap.

 

[Redneck in training]

I am also intrigued with the use of (different fuels). Have not seen the documentary, but it does sound like vhs/beta or cassette tape/Compact Disc war. Guess someone out there has a product to sell and there is always some similar competition. Typical result is the one with the better product is used - until it is trumped by a new product.

I read somewhere that Fords Model 'T' would run on Moonshine as well as it would burn pump gas. You could advance timing from the seat and adjustments were easily made on the carburetor. My Grandpaw owns a 1918 one and at first glance it looks like a compact car with big wood wheels. Always wanted to drive it as a kid but never got the chance... It now resides in his shed and hasn't been driven in years.

Anyway, I would love to have the money and time to convert a 60's era carbureted vehicle to run on moonshine. Not to see if it would in fact work; but be reliable as well. Guess You would have to mix the fuel as it would burn so clean nothing would lubricate the valves and such. Perhaps a dob of transmission fluid in the tank would help?

Oh well, takes money and lots of free time to experiment with stuff like this.... Unfortunately, I have an abundance of neither.

When I was young I used to race speed boats. The rules allowed free fuel so most of the engines run on methyl-alcohol (96% or better). So I believe the old Ford engine would run on moonshine but it would have to be rather strong one. I doubt 40% would do it.
There were several reasons running on 100% methyl:
1.) The fuel tolerated high compression in range around 1:16 without pinging.
2.) Since it contains only about half of the energy content of gasoline you need to deliver about double the amount to get the same amount of power. The large volume of fuel would evaporate in the combustion chamber before ignition helping to keep the temperatures down.

Typical engine running on methyl would produce over 300 HP/liter (61 cid) of displacement. And it was 50 years ago when rpm were limited to about 10000 rpm max by materials available at that time. I would expect that engines running on pure alcohol could develop double the power with today's materials.

 

[Copperhead]

Copperhead, cost per mile is lower on E-85 for you, because you are Iowa. This is where corn is made and ethanol plants are plentiful. In most other states E-85 is not as cheap.

All true. It is a regional thing. Not disputing that at all. Not much different than any other fuel. Prices vary from region to region. Obviously, if it is not as cost effective in one area, then by all means, don't use it! I will continue to use it in my area and that will free up more gas for another area. A win win for everyone!