The only reason i know that the one gas station around me doesnt have ethanol is that my brother works for the the fuel company that owns the gas station, so i know that there isnt and ethanol in the fuel there.

 

my 06 is/was a flex fuel

my MPG went in the crapper big time every time I use the 10% mix...and the E85 was unbelieveable with how bad my MPG went down.

I understand there can be more power to be made, but for the average joe with a normal truck, the ethanal gas mixes are worthless for MPG. I hate it.



I've been meaning to ask Roush what would happen if I ran E85 now with the blower?

 

I agree. Its worthless and nothing more than a scam on the taxpayers (there's a history of dirty money to politicians from various people involved in the ethanol trade). Just saying its good for the track (where cost and mileage aren't factors) once in a while if the vehicle is set up for it.

It will run dangerously lean. For a few seconds it'll seem like it has gobs of power then you'll vent the block, hole a piston, etc.

 

thanks Ken, I figured something along those lines would occur.

 

What's the PCM code of your truck? The code is 3 letters followed by 1 number, on the PCM itself. Let me know and I'll take a look at the Roush version (I have it in my SCT database). I'll wager Roush did not make changes to the E85 tables for the blower, almost 100% sure on this. The Flex Fuel does give you a huge advantage though... you have a lot of "spare" fuel pump capacity. The non-flex fuel Roushcharged trucks literally hit 100% fuel pump duty cycle at wide open throttle (this can be fixed with tuning but you still end up hitting the wall again around 410-425 RWHP).

 

RYB3




the blank spots are my info from shipping to Roush

 

Ken, I live in real rural northwestern NJ and ALL our gas is required to be a 10% ethonal blend as the oxygenator for gasoline. We previously had MTBE. With my F150 4.6 I would get 21 mpg highway on "real gas", 16 mpg with MTBE and now 13.8 with ethanol. It bites!

Corn is a food. It costs more in energy to produce ethanol than it "saves" as using it as a fuel. This is just another misguided goverment boondogle that scr*ws the taxpayer while actually increasing the NOX emissions from what I read.

Gotta love the idiots in Washington we call our "leaders" .

Whimsey

 

Right on whimsey. The only way I get better results is to run the 89 as I already mentioned several times, the 87 is like direct drainage, in and out. At least the 89 stays and chats for a while

 

If you're getting better results with 89 and up it may be that its not because of the octane, but because its ethanol free. The Ethanol Free Coalition is currently fighting to keep it out of premium (89+) in several states.

As to the law in New Jersey, sorry, but because you see it at the pumps or your buddy tells you that, doesn't make it so. Only Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon and Washington have mandatory E10. In all other states they simply comply with the law that a certain about of ethanol must be sold. Because there aren't enough E85 capable pumps and vehicles around to use up the amount mandated, the only way the petrolium companies can comply with the law is by making E10. I've searched New Jersey law online, and numerous resources which list E10 laws, and New Jersey comes up empty. If you can link to the law... I'll concede.

 

As far as NJ requiring E10 you are probably correct. Due to NJ being a small state and heavily urbanized I believe most areas of the state are classified by the Federal EPA as to "needing" an oxygenator in the fuel, even rural areas due to our proximity to the urban areas, +/- 50 miles. For years NJ has used oxygenators in gasoline, first just in the winter then all year round. It was originally MTBE now it's ethanol. For years while we had oxygenators in our fuel in NW NJ. right across the Delaware River in PA they didn't need it. I'm talking about 5 to 10 years ago. I don't know if that still applies today.

I understand oxygenated fuel was originally intended to limit pollution during cold start ups with vehicles with carburetors. With today's fuel injected computer controlled vehicles does it provide a real benefit? I read ethanol increases NOX emissions. Plus you increase HC & CO due to burning more fuel to go the same distance.

I still believe it's a political boondoggle.

Whimsey

 

I know this is splitting hairs... (okay, I'll admit it, I nit pick details) they outlawed MTBE as you said but didn't require ethanol. Most oxygenated fuel there uses ethanol, but it only requires less than 5% ethanol per gallon to meet the oxygenate requirements. I believe what I saw was that about 85% of fuel in New Jersey uses ethanol as an oxygenate. What this tells me is that probably 99% of 87 octane is ethanol based, while premium and mid-grade aren't. That's why one of the big anti-ethanol groups is fighting to keep it out of premium in NJ.

I 100% agree with the political boondoggle. You ought to see the pages of chemical, environmental, economic and other statistics, links and studies I've posted in the alternative fuels forum on this site. Its pissed off a lot of farmers because I call as I see it: farmer welfare. For a group which claims to be so hard working and independent many of them don't seem to mind sticking their palm out to Uncle Sam for a handout.

In 1988 the EPA was actually about to ban ethanol in fuel because of its environmental impact. A big ethanol producer gave heavily to George H. Bush's campaign and the change suddenly was stopped. George lost and there was a high chance Clinton would reverse the policy. This producer donated $100K to Clinton's inaugural event fund raiser. Clinton went even further than Bush, not only did he not reverse it, he actually directed the EPA to increase ethanol usage! The rest is history, as the ethanol/farm lobby gets richer and more powerful they use their money to buy more power and suck up taxpayer wealth. Any farmer disputing that can't dispute it - its fact and if they try to they're disingenuous and self-serving, saying whatever is necessary to protect the sugar tit.

 

Has it's benefits and drawbacks.

Problem is the farmers locally use corn because it's the most abundantly available crop. Simply look at all the possible products that can make ethanol (sugar cane, bagasse, miscanthus, sugar beet, sorghum, grain sorghum, switchgrass, barley, hemp, kenaf, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, sunflower, fruit, molasses, corn, stover, grain, wheat, straw, cotton, other biomass, as well as many types of cellulose waste and harvestings, whichever has the best well-to-wheel assessment), which corn seems to have one of the smallest energy conversion rate. So part of the E85 problem is the product being used. Secondly, the process currently used to create E85 is inefficient, but as the technology for refining ethanol develops and products used, the efficiency will only increase. Lastly, it's due to our gasoline motors needing a lower compression ratio than an E100 vehicle that creates the loss in mpgs when running E85. Running a higher CR motor on E100 will produce more hp/lb-ft and mpgs than an identical motor with a lower CR for 87 or even 93 octane. Flex Fuels can't adjust the CR, only the amount of fuel the injectors and fuel pump send, I believe based on the alcohol content. Big part of E85s appeal is it's a renewable source from the US, unlike gasoline being non-renewable and imported. It's pollution levels are similar to gasoline, some areas slightly better, some slightly worse. So they basically cancel each other out.

Ethanol (E100) consumption in an engine is approximately 51% higher than for gasoline since the energy per unit volume of ethanol is 34% lower than for gasoline. However, the higher compression ratios in an ethanol-only engine allow for increased power output and better fuel economy than could be obtained with lower compression ratios. In general, ethanol-only engines are tuned to give slightly better power and torque output to gasoline-powered engines. In flexible fuel vehicles, the lower compression ratio requires tunings that give the same output when using either gasoline or hydrated ethanol. For maximum use of ethanol's benefits, a much higher compression ratio should be used, which would render that engine unsuitable for gasoline use. When ethanol fuel availability allows high-compression ethanol-only vehicles to be practical, the fuel efficiency of such engines should be equal or greater than current gasoline engines. However, since the energy content (by volume) of ethanol fuel is less than gasoline, a larger volume of ethanol fuel (151%) would still be required to produce the same amount of energy. In spite of that, as the ethanol-only vehicle wastes less energy, it yields the same or higher mileage.

I don't back ethanol, but I don't tear it down either. Prefer to be equally informed on all products. There are goods and bands to the product, like anything. While I do use E85 on occasion, E85 is not worth my money if the difference between it and 87 octane is less than $.70. Plus the fact if you use E85 over 50% of the time, you must change your oil every 3mo/3K while on 87 octane the service is recommended at 5mo/5K, at least per my owners manual.

The one item I find odd in this post, is people are upset that US farmers are getting subsidies from E85. True this isn't the most honest route to get their money. But so many people today out there are stating "buy American", "help the economy rebound", etc, and would much rather purchase a fuel from who knows where in the middle east, supporting who knows what organizations that can possibly hurt out local economy. I don't preach "buy American", but simply think for those who do, this would be one way to help our nation and local economy. Sure you'd take a hit in the wallet book because of the mpg decrease, but some may find it worth wild.

Just adding my 2 cents.

 

Ken,
I appreciate your insite. The majority of fuel pumps in NJ dispense all three grades of gasoline. I think the pump has the generic label saying that the gasoline contains ethanol. I don't believe that it specifies which octane levels or how much ethanol. I'll look next time I get fuel. Thanks!

Whimsey

 

One of my good friends owns an Exxon station, and advises me that now Exxon contains 10% ethanol as does Sunoco. He further told me that by summer, here in Pennsylvania, every gas station will contain ethanol and there is no law forcing the stations to post any notice on the pumps.

 

Here's a list of which states currently require ethanol labeling and under what circumstances (some don't require it if its under a certain percentage):

Ethanol Labeling Laws - State by State Guide.