Ask the Car People.SM


The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

1067 messages,  Last post on May 04, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels

Messages Page 4 of 108

#26 of 1067 Might as well? by shieatt

Apr 24, 2007 (1:06 pm)

For the first time, E-85 is available at a local station just up the road from my home. I drive an 03 Chevy Suburban that will run on E-85, so I have filled up on it twice to give it a try. E-85 is selling between 20 and 30 cents cheaper than regular unleaded, which I don't think completely compensates for the lost MPG. It seems pretty obvious from the debate that E-85 is not the savior that some politicians want to pretend like it is (yes, I must have the same Congresswoman as markcincinnati - she drives a new Chevy Tahoe with license plates reading "E85 4 OH"... and, coincidentally, the station that started selling E-85 is directly across the street from her farm). Nevertheless, on balance, since I already have a vehicle that will run on it, it seems like on balance it is at least slightly better for the environment and to reduce demand for foreign oil, so I think I will keep filling up on E-85. Interested in your thoughts...

#27 of 1067 Re: Might as well? [shieatt] by jkinzel

Apr 24, 2007 (4:29 pm)

Replying to: shieatt (Apr 24, 2007 1:06 pm)
Keep track of your mileage with E85 and with Regular unleaded and lets see what the diffrence is.
 
Thanks

#28 of 1067 Mileage with E85 by shieatt

Apr 30, 2007 (9:50 am)

The Suburban has a trip computer... strictly around town stop-and-go driving, I am averaging around 10.5 MPG on my first two tanks of E85. Not impressive, but I only averaged around 14 MPG on regular unleaded under similar driving conditions. The problem, of course, is that currently E85 is only about 11% cheaper than regular unleaded, whereas my mileage is suffering by around 25%. So, as I do the math, about 14% increase in fuel cost. I'd be willing to pay 14% more if I thought I was doing some good, but I'm not convinced that my money is well spent.

#29 of 1067 Re: Mileage with E85 [shieatt] by jkinzel

Apr 30, 2007 (8:23 pm)

Replying to: shieatt (Apr 30, 2007 9:50 am)
Well, the numbers are discouraging and with fuel prices rising I’m not sure my wallet could take a 25% reduction in MPG.
 
The numbers make a Suburban with a diesel option getting 25 to 30 MPG much more appealing.
 
It’s truly a shame and a travesty that such an option does not exist.
 
Thanks for the update.

#30 of 1067 Car Shopping in the US. . . by markcincinnati

May 24, 2007 (4:14 am)

My 2005 Audi A6 3.2 seemed -- over two years ago -- a gas sipper, compared to my previous thirstier Audis. Now, as the cost for premium juice (even with my Costco or Kroger cards) has risen to $3.59 (and counting) per gallon, well, I'm thinking this "sipper" even is too thirsty.
 
Reading about diesel, clean, cleaner, cleanest diesel -- then reading about diesel made from (fer instance) soybeans and other non petrol based substances -- AND THEN reading about the variety of diesel cars we Americans cannot buy. . .well, its enough to frustrate and confuse even the most optimistic of us.
 
I'd say I'm beyond confused, I've made the transition to disappointed.
 
Careful reading -- and it is hardly lively prose -- about E85 does seem to lead to the conclusion that its main purpose is to allow the skirting of CAFE issues that are, er, "difficult" (or would be) to address without some clever engineering and/or adoption of diesel across a much wider number of vehicles.
 
It seems E85 costs more to use (including the subsidy that it gets, which means it would REALLY cost more without the subsidy). Some evidence suggests it is -- overall -- dirtier than dino-fuel, too. Additional evidence says it (as it is currently produced) an energy negative or at best energy neutral (in terms of production when "the total impact" is accounted for.)
 
Virtually none of these concerns seem to be the case with dino-diesel and the varying permutations of "B" diesel. Moreover, diesel cars get up to 44% better mileage when one attempts to keep the performance "similar."
 
My 3.2 V6 gasoline engine can be replaced with a 3.0 V6 diesel engine (but not in the US). The result? More torque, similar performance (both in acceleration and top speed) and a 39% improvement in MPG. Diesel, per gallon, was -- recently -- $.70 less per gallon than the fuel my engine requires.
 
Hmm: more torque, approximately the same performance, better mileage and lower price per gallon to boot.
 
Add any amount of "B" you care to, to these points, all the way to B100.
 
E85 seems doomed -- it seems "E85 4 OHIO" is, er, crapola, political crapola at that.
 
Diesel, in the short term, still seems a more "appropriate" solution.

#31 of 1067 Re: Car Shopping in the US. . . [markcincinnati] by gagrice

May 25, 2007 (8:23 pm)

Replying to: markcincinnati (May 24, 2007 4:14 am)
I'd say I'm beyond confused, I've made the transition to disappointed
 
Join the club. The sad truth is the US Government including Congress, EPA and the Administration are not at all interested in using less fossil fuel. Ethanol is a smoke screen and political ploy to keep the farm lobby happy. It takes about as much fossil fuel to grow and produce ethanol as you get back in BTUs. Add those entities to most of the state governments especially the very powerful CA legislature and the lackeys they hire to run CARB and it brings the frustration level even higher. In CA they have held off the environmental wackos in Hollywood with hybrid cars. The real truth is any kind of decrease in fuel usage costs these government agencies TAX DOLLARS. They managed to turn off the EV-1 program that would have cost them billions in lost gas tax revenue.
 
HERE IT IS BOTTOM LINE. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT TO LOSE ANY TAX DOLLARS. IF WE USE LESS FUEL THEY GET LESS TAXES TO WASTE.
 
They have managed to keep the status quo for the last 30 years. They are going to keep it flowing at any cost.

#32 of 1067 Ethanol causes all food prices up by texases

May 28, 2007 (10:05 am)

Newpaper today: ethanol not only boosted corn prices 46% over the last several years, it's making farmers plant corn instead of wheat and soybeans, so their prices are going up, too (22% for soybeans). So everything we eat will be going up because of the corporate welfare known as ethanol.

#33 of 1067 Re: Ethanol causes all food prices up [texases] by jkinzel

May 28, 2007 (1:31 pm)

Replying to: texases (May 28, 2007 10:05 am)
This why I'm saying "NO" to buying GM or Ford. Unless they back off or let go of this ethanol thing, Im looking at buying my first foreign car.

#34 of 1067 Re: Ethanol causes all food prices up [jkinzel] by smithjamal

May 30, 2007 (7:14 pm)

Replying to: jkinzel (May 28, 2007 1:31 pm)
It maybe a fact because ethanol uses organic materials, but is we can minimize the pollution then why not? it's all worthy...
 
Green Car

#35 of 1067 Re: Ethanol causes all food prices up [smithjamal] by jkinzel

May 30, 2007 (9:13 pm)

Replying to: smithjamal (May 30, 2007 7:14 pm)
Bio diesel uses organic materials (used cooking oil, animal waste, mostly thing we do not eat) and gets far better mileage. Let use bio diesel instead and eat the corn. Better mileage and a full belly.

Messages Page 4 of 108

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement