Alcohol and driving

rslifkin wrote: Wouldn't hurt to test it out on 93 as well for an additional data point. It'll probably burn through the 93 a little slower than 87 (and a lot slower than E85). That way you have enough data to look at the relative prices of each fuel and know which one is really cheapest to put in the truck on any given day.

Mileage and costs are two different items. If the cost of ethanol fuel is low enough it can offset a significant reduction in mileage.. In my case my mileage was reduced by only a little over 1 mile per gallon.. so my costs actually went down.

frenchyd wrote: Mileage and costs are two different items. If the cost of ethanol fuel is low enough it can offset a significant reduction in mileage.. In my case my mileage was reduced by only a little over 1 mile per gallon.. so my costs actually went down.

Yes, but you have to know what the mileage is to calculate cost. Once you know what mpg each fuel will return on average, you can look at the current costs for each fuel and decide which one is really cheapest.

rslifkin wrote:

frenchyd wrote: Mileage and costs are two different items. If the cost of ethanol fuel is low enough it can offset a significant reduction in mileage.. In my case my mileage was reduced by only a little over 1 mile per gallon.. so my costs actually went down.

Yes, but you have to know what the mileage is to calculate cost. Once you know what mpg each fuel will return on average, you can look at the current costs for each fuel and decide which one is really cheapest.

That is exactly what I did.. E85 was cheaper per mile and on the projected 16,000 miles I'll drive this year that will save me $272.00 but the real plus is the added power. How much? my butt says 100, yeh! I know that's probably optimistic but if you felt how it changes the delivery of power you'd probably be optimistic too. Grassroots when they did a whole series of tests on a Miata found over a baseline of 93 octane pump fuel E85 made an additional 8 horsepower and 4 foot pounds of torque.

Cheaper and more power!!!!

You will want to make sure E-85 is available in all of your trip.

Around here, E-85 and electric car charge stations are not readily available.

iceracer wrote: You will want to make sure E-85 is available in all of your trip. Around here, E-85 and electric car charge stations are not readily available.

It's called Flex fuel. Well over a decade ago cars started coming out with the flex fuel emblem on the trunk or tailgate. You pull into a station and buy whichever fuel trips your trigger.. The computer reads the inputs and magic happens.. Cars made after 2001 can use up to 15% ethanol even without the flex fuel option.. Cars made prior to 2001 should stick to 10% ethanol (unless you are set up for something else)

Ah, then you are running gasoline instead of alcohol.

throws your figures out the window.

iceracer wrote: Ah, then you are running gasoline instead of alcohol. throws your figures out the window.

The opening posting talked about E85 and regular 87 octane pump fuel, the difference in mileage and costs per mile..

You get 25 mpg in an f150? How the heck am I only managing 30 in a Focus?

In reply to Enyar: Same reason the Ford Ranger got such poor mileage compared to the F150. Older technology versus high volume high profit item like a pickup compared to the low profit low volume Focus..

It's bizarre the little things Ford does to improve mileage. For example you'd think that if they put a cover over the pickup bed or ran with the tailgate down mileage would improve. Not so! air trapped by the bed and tailgate form an aerodynamic bubble that actually improves mileage..

Look at the shape of the tailgate! Then think back to older tailgates that were simple panels of metal designed to keep stuff in the bed.. the aerodynamics has to be mind blowing..

The newer F-150s do get surprisingly good mpg on the highway if you stay slow-ish and keep your foot out of it. But 25 is still pretty high compared to anything I've seen.

Enyar wrote: You get 25 mpg in an f150? How the heck am I only managing 30 in a Focus?

I'm pushing 40mpg in my '16 Focus. I think when it warms up a little more, I'll get it.

Like the 25mpg F150, most of that has to be on the highway- as the mass will prevent anywhere near that in the city. And my drive is mostly highway.

That's great you can get E85 that cheaply. Most places I've seen only sell it for like 10-20 cents/gallon cheaper. You lose money by using E85 at that price.

My dad just bought a 2017 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup, 4.3 Vortec with 4x4, crew cab standard bed. He gets about 23 mpg on the highway.

My mom's 2016 Caddilac, which is AWD, a bunch smaller and lighter, with a smaller displacement V6 and with much less frontal area, gets virtually identical fuel economy.

As for Ethanol...from what I've read it's basically been proven to be AT BEST energy neutral- that is, it takes about the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of Ethanol to grow, distill, and transport 1 gallon of Ethanol. Some studies even show it being slightly net energy negative. By contrast, gasoline made from dead dinosaurs takes something like 1 gallon's worth of energy to produce 30 gallons of gasoline. It's far, far more efficient in that regard.

The relative cheapness at the pump of E85 is politically-motivated and subsidized. And comes with other costs associated with mass-scale agriculture, shifting priorities from food production to fuel, etc.

Still, in a pragmatic sense, if its cheaper for you, use it. Your buying or not buying the stuff isn't going to make it any more or less prevalent, statistically speaking.

Also, somewhat of a tangent- all this talk of "miles per gallon" can be somewhat misleading or confusing. We have a hard time distinguishing the "real" difference between, say, 15 mpg and 20 mpg (a 33% increase) and 25 mpg and 30 mpg (a 20% increase) and 35 mpg and 40 mpg (a 14% increase). 5 mpg ain't 5 mpg.

I like how they do it in most of the rest of the world: volume used per distance traveled. For most people, this is more useful information. A car that uses 5 gallons per 100 miles versus one that uses 4 gallons per 100 miles is easier to figure running costs on.

alfadriver wrote:

Enyar wrote: You get 25 mpg in an f150? How the heck am I only managing 30 in a Focus?

I'm pushing 40mpg in my '16 Focus. I think when it warms up a little more, I'll get it. Like the 25mpg F150, most of that has to be on the highway- as the mass will prevent anywhere near that in the city. And my drive is mostly highway.

I'll repeat the conditions I tested under.. 1/3 of the 16 mile trip was 25-30MPH, 1/3 was 40 MPH, and 1/3 was freeway speed. Two of the trips per day were morning and evening commute. while two were midday non-rush hour driving.. My best mileage in nearly 11,000 miles so far was 22.1 with the average being something like 21.7 mpg.. The 25 someone referred to is what Ford gets with their echo boost 4 cylinder engine..

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Also, somewhat of a tangent- all this talk of "miles per gallon" can be somewhat misleading or confusing. We have a hard time distinguishing the "real" difference between, say, 15 mpg and 20 mpg (a 33% increase) and 25 mpg and 30 mpg (a 20% increase) and 35 mpg and 40 mpg (a 14% increase). 5 mpg ain't 5 mpg. I like how they do it in most of the rest of the world: volume used per distance traveled. For most people, this is more useful information. A car that uses 5 gallons per 100 miles versus one that uses 4 gallons per 100 miles is easier to figure running costs on.

That's just a matter of semantics.. either are very simple to calculate. Use whatever method you feel comfortable with.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: My dad just bought a 2017 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup, 4.3 Vortec with 4x4, crew cab standard bed. He gets about 23 mpg on the highway. My mom's 2016 Caddilac, which is AWD, a bunch smaller and lighter, with a smaller displacement V6 and with much less frontal area, gets virtually identical fuel economy. As for Ethanol...from what I've read it's basically been proven to be AT BEST energy neutral- that is, it takes about the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of Ethanol to grow, distill, and transport 1 gallon of Ethanol. Some studies even show it being slightly net energy negative. By contrast, gasoline made from dead dinosaurs takes something like 1 gallon's worth of energy to produce 30 gallons of gasoline. It's far, far more efficient in that regard. The relative cheapness at the pump of E85 is politically-motivated and subsidized. And comes with other costs associated with mass-scale agriculture, shifting priorities from food production to fuel, etc. Still, in a pragmatic sense, if its cheaper for you, use it. Your buying or not buying the stuff isn't going to make it any more or less prevalent, statistically speaking.

The studies that claim ethanol is not energy beneficial usually have some extreme circumstances.. Example Ethanol made in the Midwest and trucked to either coast..

Real world ethanol is made where corn grows, often right up to the fence next to the plant that converts it.. Then it is piped to the refinery just like crude oil is.. Just check out the low price of fuel that is due to more fuel being available, in part because America suddenly needs 10-15% less oil to meet it's fuel needs.. (Yes to new extraction methods that rejuvenated old wells, and exploiting oil from shale etc..) But don't forget that when OPEC wanted to do another oil embargo the amount they could cut off wasn't enough to offset the added flow and reduced demand partially caused by ethanol..

If you'd really like an unbiased view of ethanol look to Brazil.. Brazil was deeply in debt due to the cost of importing enough crude to meet it's needs.. In ten years by switching to ethanol Brazil's economy was out of debt and roaring along with crude oil imports down to about 5% of pre- ethanol's level..

Yes there is politics in ethanol. and yes it is subsidized. Then so is oil.. ever hear of the oil depletion allowance? Oil companies can write off a big chunk of their tax debt because once they pump oil out of the ground that oil is no longer there!!!!! If we could do the same thing we'd get to write off a major portion of our tax debt because we spent the money!!! Same thing with the cost of oil exploration.. That's deductible even if no oil is found.. If you could have the same tax break you'd get a big deduction because you can't find a better paying job!!!

Sky_Render wrote: That's great you can get E85 that cheaply. Most places I've seen only sell it for like 10-20 cents/gallon cheaper. You *lose* money by using E85 at that price.

I got slightly more than 1 mile per gallon with pump grade 87 octane.. even if it's only 20 cents cheaper wouldn't that mean you'd still get lower costs per mile? If not and you have flex fuel go ahead and buy pump grade 87 octane whenever the difference is too small to make it worthwhile.

I'm tempted to use it whenever I can simply because I like the added power I get with E85

Don't forget NASCAR uses it and INDY cars burn pure ethanol (I wonder if they have to denature it to keep the mechanics from drinking it?) Yes! pure ethanol is 200 proof booze!!!!

In reply to frenchyd:

You at least realize that there's not enough corn grown to supply the entire country with E20, right? There's barely enough for E10.

OTOH, I've been tempted to brew up my own E85- the problem with home brewing is it's really hard to make anything over 190 proof without some trick hardware. If I could only keep the creatures from eating all of my grapes.

As far as E85 vs E10 running costs at a 20 cent / gal difference, it's going to depend on the vehicle. Some suffer a worse mpg penalty from E85 than others.

In reply to frenchyd:

I would bet there was more going on in Brazil than simply switching to Ethanol that helped their economy. Besides, slashing all the forests down to plant corn didn't exactly do wonders for other things...

I haven't seen in any of the studies where they assumed worst-case transportation situations for ethanol production. Growing corn and distilling alcohol in and of itself is pretty energy intensive. Plus, as alfadriver notes, we'd pretty much have to increase the number of planted acres 5 fold to grow enough e85 for everybody.

Ethanol in Brazil is made from sugar cane, which requires quite a bit less energy than corn, enough so that you really can't compare the two.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to frenchyd: You at least realize that there's not enough corn grown to supply the entire country with E20, right? There's barely enough for E10. OTOH, I've been tempted to brew up my own E85- the problem with home brewing is it's *really* hard to make anything over 190 proof without some trick hardware. If I could only keep the creatures from eating all of my grapes.

I know that it is possible to get a federal license to make your own alcohol but I keep hearing conflicting advice about the details.. Supposedly it's easy and cheap as long as you don't sell it and limit production, yet there is always someone reporting horror stories about costs and consequences..

Then too is the issue of actually getting 200 proof since most home brewing is more than content to brew 100 proof or less.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: In reply to frenchyd: I would bet there was more going on in Brazil than simply switching to Ethanol that helped their economy. Besides, slashing all the forests down to plant corn didn't exactly do wonders for other things... I haven't seen in any of the studies where they assumed worst-case transportation situations for ethanol production. Growing corn and distilling alcohol in and of itself is pretty energy intensive. Plus, as alfadriver notes, we'd pretty much have to increase the number of planted acres 5 fold to grow enough e85 for everybody.

I suggest that you drive by ethanol plants before you believe the studies that show high energy consumption in production.. They all tend to be right in corn growing areas.. I believe most of them also have pipelines to refineries because I don't see tankers coming out of them..

Further drive by farmers planting or harvesting their corn crop and often you will smell "popcorn" That's a farmer willing to use waste cooking oil rather than pay for fuel.

As for Brazil, most often forests were cut down first to harvest wood, then to grow hi value crops and finally put into use for beef production. Sugar cane doesn't tend to grow well in former Forest land areas preferring former swamp land. That totally ignores the massive population pressure caused by overcrowding in high population density areas like Rio and Sao Paulo

alfadriver wrote: In reply to frenchyd: You at least realize that there's not enough corn grown to supply the entire country with E20, right? There's barely enough for E10. OTOH, I've been tempted to brew up my own E85- the problem with home brewing is it's *really* hard to make anything over 190 proof without some trick hardware. If I could only keep the creatures from eating all of my grapes.

Long term ethanol is not the solution to our transportation needs.. Nor is oil. Renewable will probably be the solution for the next generation. There have been some amazing gains in those areas. Look at Tesla. Last I heard little Tesla was worth more than GM!!!

I've got 15-20 years left. I'll still be using some of the vehicles I already own right up to the point they dig a hole in the ground to plant me.. The ease it takes to convert them to use ethanol and the fun and power ethanol gives is reason enough for me to be an advocate.. Sure I know there is some potential long term benefit to our climate using corn instead of oil but the main reason is the fun!!!!