GREEN16

Anyone here consistently running E85? I'd like to hear some opinions on the stuff. Do you guys think there are any other benefits to it other than burning 'cleaner' and it being a good natural alternative to oil consumption? We all know the decrease in mileage roughly evens out the dollars you save on the price at the pump, it's kind of a wash.

I'm especially curious if anyone runs an E85 specific tune on their ecoboost/turbo setup or even on their tuned 5.0's. The benefits of the corn for performance are really great due to its high octane rating and resistance to knock.

How much boost can you run on these ecoboost setups? I wonder what the limiting factor is on those trucks if you were to run E85 and crank up the boost? What would be the first thing to go?

Does anyone run a tank of E85 through their trucks on occasion for any other reason?

ABN Panzer

I don't own either of those engines, and search is limited, but I don't think the ecoboost was e85 compatible.

Firerunner

iTrader: (3)

You are correct... you can only run E85 in vehicles badged as "FLEX FUEL"

DarkHelmet314

E85 is supposed to be eco friendly and that is fine. Problem is from my understanding is it burns faster ( you go thru it faster than gas ) and usually costs more ( location dependent ). I think only 2 or 3 places here carry it and no one I know with flex fuel uses it. 1 person I know did and said it cost a bit more and he went thru a tank faster. Again, results will vary on driving habits and so forth.

Ricktwuhk

An Ecoboost is not a flex fuel vehicle, read your manual.

Even with flex fuel vehicles, you need a 30 percent or greater cost savings on E85 to make it worth the mpg loss. You only see that in the cornbelt states.

Nothing ecological about it as it raises food prices and pollutes when it is made.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles...l#.WAncIekpDqB

From an Oxford article:


The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option, considering ecological footprint values, and both net energy and CO2*offset considerations seemed relatively unimportant compared to the ecological footprint. As revealed by the ecological footprint approach, the direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this alternative energy resource on a large scale.

In the Brazilian case, for carbon sequestration, it seems to be more effective to reduce the rate of deforestation than to plant sugarcane. According to*Fearnside and colleagues (2001), the amount of CO2*released to the atmosphere because of forest burning in the Amazon is about 187 Mg per ha. The current Brazilian energy scenario contrasts with that of the 1970s. Currently, Brazil produces 90% of the oil it consumes, and so the national security argument for substituting ethanol no longer applies. Furthermore, the argument for electricity cogeneration is meaningless, since the energy surplus is minimal.

In the US case, the use of ethanol would require enormous areas of corn agriculture, and the accompanying environmental impacts outweigh its benefits. Ethanol cannot alleviate the United States' dependence on petroleum.

However, the ethanol option probably should not be wholly disregarded. The use of a fuel that emits lower levels of pollutants when burned can be important in regions or cities with critical pollution problems. Also, in agricultural situations where biomass residues would otherwise be burned to prepare for the next planting cycle, there would be some advantage in using the residues for alcohol production. However, further research should be done to improve the conversion process. Considering that, eventually, petroleum may no longer be available in the amounts currently consumed, one must conclude that substitution of alternatives to fossil fuel cannot be done using one option alone. It will prove more prudent to have numerous options (e.g., ethanol, fuel cells, solar energy), each participating with fractional contributions to the overall national and global need for fuel energy. Finally, it is important to notice that no option comes free from significant environmental problems.

WXman

Here in KY, it's typically about $0.40/gallon cheaper than 87 octane gasoline. I ran E85 for a few tanks back in the summer and I got 15-20% reduction in MPGs, so when I did the math on it, it came out to almost be a wash. I may have saved a few pennies. So from a financial standpoint, there is no change.

Since it's higher octane, the ECU turns up the timing advance and you end up with more power. I've seen dyno results on a stock 5.0 truck with 87 pump gas and then with E85 and the power gains were very noticeable...above what you'd get with bolt on modifications. My particular truck also seemed to run a lot smoother on E85. So all of that is a positive.

The reason I stopped using it is because where I live, only one chain of fuel stations regularly carries E85 and so it's often hard to find.

The environmental argument? Well...you could have that discussion back and forth all day. But it's a lot easier to grow corn than it is to drill wells in the ground that render the sub-surface prone to sinkholes and shifting over large geographic areas. And growing corn is also easier than selling our souls to OPEC for dinosaur oil.

SteveLord

Ethanol is a scam. Getting harder to avoid even a drop of it, but avoid E85 for sure.

GREEN16

You sound like me at work! Haha. I didn't realize the ecoboost trucks weren't flex fuel compatible. I wonder why... because boost and E85 are a great combination for more power, and safe power at that. I'm willing to bet if an ecoboost owner were to convert their fuel components to everything ethanol compatible and get a custom E85 tune they would see big power gains.

I would LOVE to hear some dyno numbers with 87 vs E85 if have them! This is the kind of information I was hoping for.

I can understand about the availability issue, there are only two stations within a hundred miles of me (they both happen to be pretty close to home), but in some places even in the mid south there won't be stations for hundreds of miles.

I hate the fact that standard gasoline is 10% ethanol. I'd rather have my choice of 100% of one or the other, not a blend, but why do you say it's scam and to avoid it?

Adrenlin

E85 is generally cheaper than regular fuel, but the MPG provided by E85 suffers to the point that you actually spend more on fuel. There's only one scenario that I know of where E85 makes sense, that is in the case of filling up a rental just before you turn it back in. Assuming you needed to return the rental with a full tank.

Firerunner

iTrader: (3)

I don't know about nationally, but where I am you can still buy 100% gasoline from the Gulf dealer