OT: Flex fuel vs regular

[Kurt Ullman]

I am looking at a new vehicle and some are equipt for high ethanol and others aren't. I am completely lost on whether FF is something to look for or just something I shouldn't object to if present.

[Nate Nagel]

It's really not a big deal... FF basically means that the piping/hoses for the fuel system need to be corrosion resistant (good) and there will be some kind of fuel sensor so the ECM detects the mix of gasoline/ethanol and will adjust fuel injector duty cycle appropriately. Fuel injectors will have more headroom as running on E85 requires more fuel volume than E10. I think there's some clean air credit BS associated with a mfgr. making a FF vehicle.

So long story short, *everything else being equal* I would chose a FF vehicle over a non-FF vehicle with the same power, options, etc. at the same price. but it wouldn't really be a major factor in my purchasing decision.

nate

[Kurt Ullman]

So, basically it is okay if I can get it for free. The other thing is that it seems to have lower mpg w/ E85, so I would have to do the math at each fillup to decide if the difference in cost between the two is worth the lower gas mileage.

[Arthur Conan Doyle]

The problem with alcohol based fuel is that it requires upgraded components that prevent corrosion and that it has a significantly reduced energy content when compared to gasoline, which translates into much lower gas mileage. All vehicles sold in the US for the past decade or more can tolerate up to 10% alcohol. FlexFuel vehicles can tolerate up to 15%.

When you look at the lousy mileage and the fact that alcohol use drives up the cost of food (most alcohol is derived from corn), it becomes obvious that mandating its use is a prime example of government stupidity. That's also why you also won't find many 15% gas stations.

FlexFuel vehicles run just fine on 100% gas. I wouldn't pay a dime more for a FF vehicle, but I wouldn't not buy a vehicle just because it was.

[gfretwell]

Bear in mind, if you are not living in a "corn" state, you probably will never see E-85

[Kurt Ullman]

Indiana is most certainly a corn state (grin)

[Ed Pawlowski]

Right, the ethanol scam is alive and well. We don't see E85 here in New England, but there is no value to using it aside from modest emissions benefits.

[Stormin Mormon]

Yes, that's gently under stated. I have read that it takes as much fuel to make the ethanol, as what is saved. So, for gasohol we have no energy benefit, but higher prices and more damage to engines.

. Christ>

[Stormin Mormon]

Must be New York is corn state also? We have E-85 at some stations. I'd burn it if I was on evac- uation from hurricane, for example, and no other fuel was to be had. Not for any other reason.

. Christ>>

[Nate Nagel]

There is one notable advantage to E85; in a turbocharged or supercharged engine you can run more boost and/or spark advance than you can with gasoline because it runs cooler than gasoline. You will still get less MPG than on gasoline because of the lower energy density than gasoline, but you can make more power, which can be entertaining.

In a NA engine, there really is no significant power/efficiency benefit, but it will run cleaner.

If I happened to have a FF vehicle and lived somewhere where E85 was available (but I don't) I would probably run a tankful of E85 through it every now and then as a fuel system cleaner.

nate

[Frank]

One huge mistake and scam. Basically energy neutral and does not take into consideration the increased cost of food. Only benefit is feeding the greed of large agribusiness and their political lackeys.

I would not pay one extra cent for a flex fuel vehicle and if I had one would not pay more than half the cost of regular gas for E85 since mileage will be nearly that much less.

[CRNG]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 10:05:53 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote in Re Re: OT: Flex fuel vs regular:

Indeed. An in my case, I wouldn't pay anything extra for it either.

[Roy]

There is one helluva lot of energy expended to provide gasoline and/or diesel fuel for automotive and agricultural usage. Somehow people believe all the negative propaganda about alcohol fuels but don't consider the reality of fossil fuel, its discovery, transportation, refining, etc.

I wouldn't doubt that some day the true costs of bringing conventional fuel to consumers will be aired so a true comparison can be made.

[Larry W]

The 85 in "E85" refers to 85% ETHANOL, not 85% gasoline.

[Ashton Crusher]

There are no emissions benefits, just tax benefits, paid by you, to farmers who are already rich.

[Ashton Crusher]

That's all a load of crap. The MARKET tells us what the 'True cost" is. If it were not for all the subsidies for ethanol it would not be sold in the US because it costs more per gal then regular fossil fuels. That's how a FREE market works. And Ethanol can't compete in a free market.

[Ashton Crusher]

That's not entirely true. You see E85 in Arizona at the pumps that fuel state vehicles because it's MANDATED. State gvt WASTES the taxpayers money mandating stupidity that includes using E85 and CNG and Propane for state vehicles. They pay MORE for the vehicles, pay MORE to maintain them, and get worse gas mileage so they use MORE fuel, all so the politicians can feel good about themselves.

[krw]

You're right but you snipped too closely.

[Kurt Ullman]

FWIW, the tax benefits go to the producers of ethanol. However, the Farmers get some extra benefit just because the extra demand does it what it normally does with prices.

[Roy]

And there are NO subsidies for the oil industry? Where have you been living?