Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through October 28, 2007

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Jake (nwsjake10)      Join Date: Feb 2007       09-21-2007, 10:50 AM Reply   
alright can someone please explain to me what and how this E85 ethonal works...i am looking at possibly getting a Jeep Commander with the E85, i am not all that familiar with this and how it works..can anyone out there tell me the pros/cons of this??
Old    T-Bag (nasty530)      Join Date: Aug 2007       09-21-2007, 11:12 AM Reply   
E85 is much better for the environment as it burns cleaner and has less emissions. It costs less per gallon than regular fuel HOWEVER it is not as efficient of a fuel. Thus you will not get as good of fuel economy while using it. So, you will not save money while using this fuel but you will help out the environment. For example $2.40 per gallon and 15 mpg = .16 per mile on E85. Reg fuel $2.80 per gallon and 18 mpg = .155 per mile. Again, this is just an example but you get the idea...
Old    MIKE V (madvlin)      Join Date: Jun 2007       09-21-2007, 11:16 AM Reply   
do it burn corn!
Old    Brian McHugh (bcmach)      Join Date: Apr 2007       09-21-2007, 11:21 AM Reply   
Depends on where you are, for me it saves me money in Colorado - Gas is about $2.87 and E85 is $2.09

http://www.e85fuel.com/
http://e85prices.com/
Old    Jake (nwsjake10)      Join Date: Feb 2007       09-21-2007, 11:24 AM Reply   
t-bag, thats great info thanks man..appreciate that..heres another question..do you just fill this E85 at any corner gas station..i mean do they have a pump designated just for that...or is there like special e85 gas stations or what?
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       09-21-2007, 11:59 AM Reply   
Not sure about the northeast, but the midwest has Ethanol gas stations on every corner. "flex fuel" cars can run a either or a combination.
Old    T-Bag (nasty530)      Join Date: Aug 2007       09-21-2007, 12:02 PM Reply   
It depends on the city. Where I live we have about 5 stations in the entire city, as to my knowledge. But no, they are not as common and will be more difficult to find. BUT you don't have to use solely E85 in those vehicles, you can also burn regular fuel. You should consider the 2008 Toyota Highlander Hybrid, its a sick new design and gets great gas mileage using regular fuel. Just an idea, to each their own!!
Old    Nick B (iridelow1998)      Join Date: Jun 2006       09-21-2007, 12:05 PM Reply   
Same as above, check to see where the e85 dealers are at. I was on the verge of buying a vehicle with the e85 compatibility and the dealer was pushing hard on the benefits of it. Come to find out the nearest e85 station is 100 miles from my house, needless to say I told that dealer to go pound sand and refine their sales pitch.
Old    Jake (nwsjake10)      Join Date: Feb 2007       09-21-2007, 12:33 PM Reply   
actually t-bag...i just saw the commercial for the new highlander last night, it does look like a nice ride you're right..thanks for all the info, really appreciate it
Old    Steve Oh (olskooltige)      Join Date: Mar 2007       09-21-2007, 1:18 PM Reply   
"E85 sells for nearly 30 cents less per gallon than conventional gasoline. However, on the West Coast, filling up with ethanol would cost a driver 35 cents more per gallon. In the mid-Atlantic states, E85 had an even higher premium: 44 cents per gallon."

" most fuel-efficient flexible-fuel vehicle available this year is the Chevrolet Impala. Using gasoline, it is rated at 21 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway. By using E85, rated mileage drops to 16 mpg city and 23 mpg highway."


Those quotes are from an article at Yahoo. It also has been touted that E85 dispells 40% less pollution than a lower mix, like normal pump gas. If you throw it into a formula, you can see that E85 is all hogwash and isn't the answer.

You will be using 25% more fuel on E85. 25% more fuel at 40% less emissions means you aren't saving 40% anymore. Add the machinery and pipeline into the cost, along with the cost of the fuel; doesn't sound quite as good. Especially when coupled with the increase cost of other industries and products (like Milk and Beef) due to the increase cost to the agriculture industry.
Old    Jake (nwsjake10)      Join Date: Feb 2007       09-21-2007, 1:45 PM Reply   
well see, in nebraska..we obviously have a lot of corn..so im pretty sure the E85 is easily accessable here..but all this is great info, from what is looks like on that site...1.99 for the e85...2.98 for reg. fuel...i mean thats a dollar per gallon..what do you guys think..??? yes to the e85..or no..atleast if you were in my shoes..
Old    Scott Legge (w00taz)      Join Date: Jun 2007       09-24-2007, 11:53 AM Reply   
Steve I would re-read the specs on that quote about emissions. Pollution output is based on a standard measure of power/distance covered measured in exhaust gases and particulates (ppm, volume, and percentages). It is cleaner per mile than straight pump fuel we purchase now. That's what the studies all show hence the articles.


In the future you will see the yellow handles @ your standard gas station. When the government allows it that is... Ethanol burns slower like diesel and requires a wider range of dynamic ignition timing to keep the engine running well if its supposed to run gas too. I have a bit of money tied in the ethanol thing and I am a big advocate for it and self educated in this sector. Eventually if we lean to something like E15 (15% standard gasoline 85% ethanol) the engine will only run on mostly ethanol based fuels the displacement of these engines will be smaller and power output greater. There is a reason why in race cars they typically go from gas to an ethanol/methanol to nitromethane. The next natural progression for mass produced vehicles is methanol/ethanol because of its comparable octane ratings. Powerplants will be smaller lighter and run hotter all while making more power. If you set the fuel flow and engine timings (cam for intake and exhaust and ignition timing) Ethanol/Methanol will produce more power per drop than gas and will run cleaner producing less harmful emissions.
Old    water freak (waterfreak)      Join Date: Jul 2007       09-24-2007, 12:05 PM Reply   
My truck feels like it has more HP when I use E85. Also according to my on board computer it only gets a little less then 1 mph a gallon different then regular fuel. I use both all the time it just depends on how close I am to an E85 filling station when it is time to fill er up. I put in E85 this morning. The price sure is different then regular.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       09-24-2007, 12:25 PM Reply   
E85 is worthless... by the time you factor in the fuel used by the tractors to harvest the corn and machine it it becomes no more efficient, but it is a piece of mind "helping the enviroment"
Old    Scott Legge (w00taz)      Join Date: Jun 2007       09-24-2007, 12:41 PM Reply   
Ya and the fact a of corn is thrown in the garbage and the federal gov pays to not grow corn to keep the market competitive is stupid too. Brazil has no idea what they're doing they should scrap the whole ethanol thing and use gas like us too! Nick there wouldn't be a business of ethanol if your logic were true. I'm sure chevron's economists know more about ethanol and biodiesel than you do.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       09-24-2007, 12:49 PM Reply   
What makes E85 not the final solution is the fact that more than half of all natural gas that is "mined" goes into the production of fertilizer that is used for growing corn.

Is it better than oil sure, but is it the right solution no... Are we stuck with what the corporate aholes will give us? unfortunatly.
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-24-2007, 1:28 PM Reply   
It's obvious from this thread that the ethanol marketers earn their wages!!
I am from beef country, in fact that's how I make my living. We also raise a small amount of corn, but buy and feed over 5 million bushels of corn per year.
I have also done a bit of research into the ethanol "craze" and I just don't see it being a long term product, at least as it is manufactured now. If you do the research, it presently takes around 8-9 energy units to produce 10 energy units of ethanol. From what I read, this does not include the e.u.'s it takes to haul off the by product etc.
Additionally, it takes a tremendous amount of natural gas to process the grain, and even more to dry the left over product (distillers grain) into a truly usable and storable product to feed back to livestock. They are making strides every day to make the process more efficient, but ultimately, it's going to take more ethanol for us to drive the same amount of miles as it does fossil fuel. And, we are going to have to either grow more crops, or be willing to pay more for the ones we have to feed ourselves.
As far as being more "environmentally friendly" that is absolutely laughable. How do you think the grain and all the products get to and from the plants? By truck, yes that's right, those big, nasty fuel burning eco-killers that do nothing but haul everything we want to us at any time. Do you think it might take just a bit of fuel to haul all this "eco-friendly" product?
I don't waste my time arguing the merits (or lack thereof actually) with any of the farmers or ethanol producers around here. I simply end the argument by asking them how much they could afford to produce if the government didn't PAY them a dollar per gallon to produce it. Argument over.
So, ultimately, we have to decide if it is better to drive, or to eat.
The good new is there a solutions on the horizon that will make ethanol a reasonable commodity, I just can't see taking our tax money and paying someone to produce a product that is actually inferior to what we have now.

Sorry for the rant.


nwsjake: don't pay ONE NICKEL more for a "flex fuel" vehicle. All "flex fuel" means is that if you want to burn E85, you can. Gotta love their marketing though.
Old    Robert Hixson (hixsonaz)      Join Date: May 2007       09-24-2007, 4:21 PM Reply   
it is a travesty and a sham and a mockery.

Itsa TRAVISHAMOCKERY
Old    ryan andrews (drewsnautique94)      Join Date: Nov 2006       09-24-2007, 5:56 PM Reply   
e b5 is a joke in every aspect except it burn cleaner..here in ohio the 30-35 cents more per gallon..as said why pay more when im getting less hp and fuel economy
Old    Chris Olsson (moondoggie)      Join Date: Nov 2003       09-26-2007, 3:24 PM Reply   
John you talk about those big, nasty fuel burning eco-killers and how that is bad with E-85. Aren't those SAME big, nasty fuel burning eco-killers Trucks exactly what is used to haul Gasoline to each station. appreciate your logic, but it seams irrational. If it burns cleaner, then it SHould be better for the enviroment. I do like your logic on what it takes to make and harvest ethanol/corn. that does seem to make some sense.
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-27-2007, 1:18 PM Reply   
Chris:
Gasoline can be pushed through a pipeline to regional if not local distribution centers. Very little emission to push through a pipeline. Ethanol has to be delivered by truck (or rail), therefore using MUCH fore fuel/gallon to deliver the product to the pump.

As far as burning cleaner, yes I'm sure it does, but yet at a 15% mix, you have to burn more total gallons of fuel, including gasoline, so I don't see the savings there.
There are ethanol plants popping up all over the place out here in Kansas. One of the biggest drawbacks looming on the horizon is the tremendous amount of water it takes to process corn into ethanol (between 4 and 10 gallons I am told). Water in this part of the country is one of our most precious resources. We use it to grow food, fed animals for food, and occasionally drink smoe ourselves (especially water mixed with hops and barley in just the right manner!)
So, if just the state of Kansas is predicting ethanol production of a BILLION gallons per year, that means somewhere between 4 and 10 BILLION gallons of water will have to be sucked out of the ground where it cannot be easily replaced, if EVER, just so we can all feel good about how "green" we have become.
I don't think so Tim!
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-27-2007, 1:21 PM Reply   
Sorry, I was ranting again, wasn't I? My bad.

The good new is, our tax dollars are paying for all of this.
Ethanol, in my opinion is the dot.com of the agriculture community.
Old    Chad (dcwillette)      Join Date: Sep 2005       09-27-2007, 2:29 PM Reply   
Do you guys think this new ultra-low sulpher diesel is a better option? Diesel has much more energy than gasoline and gets better fuel efficiency as a result, is usually cheaper, and I've read now has lower emissions than gasloine.

I'm not very knowledgable about alternative fuels so I'd be interested to hear your opinions on it.
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-27-2007, 3:03 PM Reply   
ULS diesel is a good product.
Mass produced diodieael blend would be the ultimate.
I have see a trial in which a small truck fleet (6 trucks) of older trucks (avg 500k miles on them) used a 60/40 blend of biodiesel (60 bio-40 diesel) and actually INCREASED their mileage by 20%. He was willing to pay a dollar/gallon more for bio, and still justify the expense. The trucks ran smoother and reduced emissions greatly. (This was not tested scientifically, but just through observation, it was that much of a difference.
Sulfur is an issue to remove from animal fat bio, but it can be done.
Too bad the govt. doesn't pay the PRODUCERS directly for biodiesel, it could be huge.
There is a 30 million gallon plant going in just south of me that will process hog fat into fuel.
Old    Scott Legge (w00taz)      Join Date: Jun 2007       09-27-2007, 4:57 PM Reply   
Ounce for ounce ethanol has more energy than gas the problem is if it was a straight cut to (denatured)alcohol (ethanol/methanol) versus gas. Ask any racecar driver which he would prefer to burn. The problem is they are making these vehicles run on both. You cannot (realistically) vary cam and ignition timing enough to dynamically adjust according to the quality of the fuel, air temp, humidity, and elevation for optimal performance. Eventually I would imagine on a larger scale deployment of E85 you could "chip" or remap fuel and ignition on trucks for some insane power and economy as it won't detonate due to the higher octane equivalent of E85 versus 87 octane junk. I am all for getting off oil and using renewable energy. There's a reason companies are pursuing ethanol and @ the moment is in all reality the only alternative to gas. I agree CORN might not be the solution but distilling some plant into ethyl alcohol has pretty much been perfected over the years (read: Jack Daniels) and I don't foresee this process ceasing from happening any time soon. Getting and processing the massive amounts of organic material and the time to ferment seem to be the biggest caveats of the process.


As for the 4-10 gallons of water "wasted" like your local power generation facilities all they need are some form of chillers to condense and reclaim the steam which is already heated and run it through again. "still chillers" have been used since prohibition because of the smell of "cookin' the mash".


On a sheer economic standpoint I can see corn being an X factor but it seems to have some undying love from americans as the source for the ethanol but I don't see the billions invested in this fuel source going away anytime in the near future. Like I said before government economists and corporate economists have a better idea of what is and will be profitable than a forum for people with a common interest (other than economics) As for personal opinion I want to see it @ my local pump and see less money being exported from america as well as feeding the american market while at the same time doing a slight bit for the environment. Hell I would rather see us buy ethanol from some place like brazil than more oil from the middle east.
Old    Art (rallyart)      Join Date: Nov 2006       09-27-2007, 10:46 PM Reply   
Once for once ethanol has only 2/3 the energy content of gasoline. Methanol has only about half. Facts are something some of you should verify. I am a race car driver in many different events with different types of engines. Ethanol has uses and so does methanol. Most racers that run alcohol burn methanol. It's too harsh to use in a street driven car and it's biggest benefit is the evaporative cooling.
You can't increase your gas mileage with Biodiesel either because it has a lower BTU content than diesel also. Not as bad as alcohols but still significantly less.

If anyone wants an easy to read, accurate assessment of alternative fuels from a reliable source, go read the current issue of National Geographic. They have several articles that will give you a clear picture.

This is a subject where there are lots of opinions and lots of science. If you only take one aspect of it to back up your opinion you can mislead others. Sometimes there are political motives from individuals or corporations for doing that, just to make a point.
Old    Art (rallyart)      Join Date: Nov 2006       09-27-2007, 11:35 PM Reply   
OK, it's ounce for ounce instead of once for once. My bad. ... but my facts are right.
Old    Erik (etakk7)      Join Date: Apr 2006       09-28-2007, 7:20 AM Reply   
consumer reports did a big story about a year ago, basically concluding you were better off (in dollars) with conventional gasoline
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2007, 7:20 AM Reply   
Art:
I agree that the basis for ethanol AS IT IS PRODUCED TODAY comes from a grassroots political movement primarily based upon the desire to increase the market for corn.
Ethanol does have a great future in this country, but only if made prom some sort of agriculture by-product that does not directly affect the food producing chain. What do you race? I spent several years drag racing, the pinnacle of which was competing in Pro Stock for the 2000 season.
Scott: excellent points. It is true we can get our cars to burn basically anything, as long as it's cheap enough and not harmful to the vehicle. My problem with corn based ethanol is sheer economics. Hopefully the research being done now will translate into a product that we can all live with, and the government will allow this business to run on it's own!!! No subsidies! Government intervention will do nothing but slow the much needed innovation in this field.
Old    Art (rallyart)      Join Date: Nov 2006       09-28-2007, 8:14 AM Reply   
John, I raced just about everything. Most of my efforts and cars that I built were in Pro Rally and roadcourse but I did some stock and drag racing and lots of solo in my spare time. I currently operate a race track. Pro stock takes too much driver talent for me to be good.
Old    John (summerobsession)      Join Date: Jun 2005       09-28-2007, 8:28 AM Reply   
Art: Perhaps that's why I don't do it any more!
I did actually have a little talent, just not enough cubic dollars.
We won the 1998 Division 5 comp championship in our B/Altered, should have stayed in comp I guess. It was may more fun, less BS

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:33 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us