Just have to ask
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Hopedale, Illinois
If E85 is $1.75 a gallon cheaper than your regular gas per gallon it is worth it...just barely. But keep in mind...when you run E85 they suggest oil changes every 3000 miles as opposed to the 7500.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 100
Likes: 4
From: Michigan
A friend of mine works in engine performance development at Ford and he told me that if you plan on keeping the engine, DON"T use E-85. Engines that he's torn down to inspect using E-85 look like they have 3 times the milage, it's eco friendly and may cost less but it's hell on engines.
Bye F150, hello F250
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 96
From: Ramara Ontario Canada
a) All Ford engines, save for diesels, are E85 (flex fuel) safe.
b) Are you going to miss 3 to 5 MPHs?? Really? Ethanol has less BTUs per volume compare to the same volume of gas. Yes, E85 will have less energy available to use that un E'ed gas of the same volume.
Hug a tree. No sense running into 1.
b) Are you going to miss 3 to 5 MPHs?? Really? Ethanol has less BTUs per volume compare to the same volume of gas. Yes, E85 will have less energy available to use that un E'ed gas of the same volume.
Hug a tree. No sense running into 1.
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
look at it this way, if you're paying $3.00 a gallon for regular gas and getting 20mpg, losing 5 mpg means a 25% reduction so from a cash standpoint, you would have to be saving 25% on the cost (75 cents in this example).
beyond that, E85 is bad stuff. takes more fuel to produce it than it saves, drives up food cost, etc and yet the government forces its use. If the government really wanted to be green, they wouldnt. If the government cared about food cost, they wouldnt. but they care about the money from the corn lobby so they do.
beyond that, E85 is bad stuff. takes more fuel to produce it than it saves, drives up food cost, etc and yet the government forces its use. If the government really wanted to be green, they wouldnt. If the government cared about food cost, they wouldnt. but they care about the money from the corn lobby so they do.
Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
beyond that, E85 is bad stuff. takes more fuel to produce it than it saves, drives up food cost, etc and yet the government forces its use. If the government really wanted to be green, they wouldnt. If the government cared about food cost, they wouldnt. but they care about the money from the corn lobby so they do.
"No. This has been a common misconception of the ethanol industry, that it takes more energy to make ethanol than is available to the final consumer. Remember, ethanol is produced from plant matter, today dominated by corn, wheat, potatoes, sorgum, etc. Plants grow through the use of energy provided by the sun and are a renewable resources. In the future, ethanol will be produced from waste products or “energy crops.” In fact, a partner of Growth Energy Market Development, BC International (BCI), is currently constructing an ethanol production plant in Louisiana that will use sugar cane waste to produce ethanol. Additionally, BCI is considering the establishment of ethanol production facilities in California that would use the waste hulls from rice growers and wood waste from the forest industry to produce ethanol. Energy crops such as perennial switch grasses, timothy, and other high-output/low-input crops will be used in the future.
Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive."
Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive."
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Hopedale, Illinois
If this is the case...why are we not seeing a bigger price difference? Why is Ethanol not a lot more reasonable in price? I am not arguing with you on this...as I try to keep an open mind. Just what I feel is a fair question.
better looking than geno
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,373
Likes: 275
From: Central Mississippi
131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline.
If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
A major part of the ethanol industry is the governmental subsidy of 51¢ per gallon that petroleum blenders receive in the form of a tax credit.