E85 gasoline?

Steve W. wrote:

> Take a look at the VIN number. If the 8th character in the VIN is E , G
> or 3 It has a flex fuel engine in it and can run E85, It should also
> have a gas cap labeled as E85/Gasoline.

The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere
on it that I can see?






> Oh and if you do run E85 expect to lose mileage and use more fuel.
>
> From an article called the Top ten facts about Flex Fuel vehicles.
> By Brian Chee
> http://snipurl.com/15apq
>
> Simply put, a flex-fuel vehicle using gasoline travels farther, at a
> clip of about 3 miles per gallon. That's what we discovered while
> driving a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche with flex-fuel capability. We clocked
> an average fuel economy of 13.4 miles per gallon using regular grade
> unleaded - not so hot, but much better than E85. A tank of E85 gasoline
> registered just 10.4 miles per gallon under virtually identical driving
> conditions. This makes the use the E85 more expensive, by around $20
> more per tank. And while that may seem like chump change, it's exactly
> the opposite of what people are currently looking to accomplish.


Currently I get about 23 mpg on regular ethanol gas. Do you think I
would lose more than 3 mpg? I figured if E85 is about 30 cents a gal
less than regular and if I lost 3 mpg off of 23 mpg that I would do
just a couple dollars better than break even over 1000 miles of
driving. Probably not worth the worry of what it will do to my
engine............

Thanks!

Steve

Steve wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the VIN number. If the 8th character in the VIN is E , G
>> or 3 It has a flex fuel engine in it and can run E85, It should also
>> have a gas cap labeled as E85/Gasoline.
>
> The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere
> on it that I can see?
>

If the VIN is G your OK.

>
>
>> Oh and if you do run E85 expect to lose mileage and use more fuel.
>>
>> From an article called the Top ten facts about Flex Fuel vehicles.
>> By Brian Chee
>> http://snipurl.com/15apq
>>
>> Simply put, a flex-fuel vehicle using gasoline travels farther, at a
>> clip of about 3 miles per gallon. That's what we discovered while
>> driving a 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche with flex-fuel capability. We clocked
>> an average fuel economy of 13.4 miles per gallon using regular grade
>> unleaded - not so hot, but much better than E85. A tank of E85 gasoline
>> registered just 10.4 miles per gallon under virtually identical driving
>> conditions. This makes the use the E85 more expensive, by around $20
>> more per tank. And while that may seem like chump change, it's exactly
>> the opposite of what people are currently looking to accomplish.
>
>
> Currently I get about 23 mpg on regular ethanol gas. Do you think I
> would lose more than 3 mpg? I figured if E85 is about 30 cents a gal
> less than regular and if I lost 3 mpg off of 23 mpg that I would do
> just a couple dollars better than break even over 1000 miles of
> driving. Probably not worth the worry of what it will do to my
> engine............
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve
>

The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20%
range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped
expect the price to jump at least 58 cents.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Steve wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>>A crude google search does turn up flex fuel 2000 caravans, but only with
>>the 3.3L V6. quick and dirty, might not be right.
>
>
> Thank you! I mistakenly said 3.8 but it IS a 3.3L V6, it is stamped
> right on the engine.
>
> Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half
> a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85?


I think you are missing something here. There's no such thing as
"regular Ethanol," E85 *IS* the highest percentage of ethanol commonly
available. "Regular" fuel is gasoline with 0, 5, 15, or 20% ethanol
adulterat^H^H^H^H^H^ added to it :-)

Steve wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm still not sure if I want to use E85 but what if I mix half
> > a tank of regular Ethanol with half a tank of E85?
>
>
> I think you are missing something here. There's no such thing as
> "regular Ethanol," E85 *IS* the highest percentage of ethanol commonly
> available. "Regular" fuel is gasoline with 0, 5, 15, or 20% ethanol
> adulterat^H^H^H^H^H^ added to it :-)

Yes! I am used to being accused of "missing something" all right!
/:-D

But here in MN I think the regular gas has 10% ethanol?? But not
really sure.

Steve

Steve W. wrote:
> The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20%
> range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped
> expect the price to jump at least 58 cents.


If the price jumps that much, the gas stations will be tying up a tank
that will never get used....
But then who knows???

Steve

Steve wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:
>> The average losses I have heard about and seen have been between 10-20%
>> range. Oh and if the federal subsidies on E85 production get dropped
>> expect the price to jump at least 58 cents.
>
>
> If the price jumps that much, the gas stations will be tying up a tank
> that will never get used....
> But then who knows???
>
> Steve
>

They won't have to worry. They can just blend it into the normal
gasoline. 99% of the regular sold in the US already is 10% Ethanol
anyway. If your in a state like NY or CA it is even higher% in the winter.

--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

"Steve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steve W. wrote:
>
> The 8th character is a G. But the gas cap does NOT have E85 anywhere
> on it that I can see?

It's not on the gas cap, its on the inside (or backside) of the gas filler
door. It's a decal that says use unleaded gasoline or E85 ethanol. Make sure
it's there before you try E85.

Steve wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > We have a 1999 Plymouth Gr. Voyager with the flex-fuel engine and we had the
> > same hesitation about trying the E85 fuel. But you don't need to worry.
> > Other than some loss of mpg, you probably won't notice any difference. The
> > engine automatically senses the E85 and adjusts itself to the fuel. Our van
> > ran just fine on it.
>
>
> Hey thanks!
>
> This gives me alot better feeling to try it now.
>
> Steve

I rented one of the new Impalas a few months ago with a flex-fuel
engine. Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was
a loss of power. It ran fine, but crushing the gas pedal didn't have
nearly the same effect as it would have with the regular in the tank.
The other negative I remember that nobody has mentioned as that the E85
STINKS! It's more booze than gasoline and if you spill a drop on
yourself or the body of your car you will think your stuck in the 14th
inning of an August baseball game by the smell of spilled beer.

I was really disappointed with my experience. The stuff doesn't burn
as well, so you don't break even on the cost/mileage. It really is the
corn farmers boondoggle that some complain about. When they go to
switchgrass for feed stock let me know.

Matthew

wrote:
> ...
> I was really disappointed with my experience. ... It really is the
> corn farmers boondoggle that some complain about. When they go to
> switchgrass for feed stock let me know.
>

The supposed goal is not so much to reduce costs as it is to 'reduce
dependence on foreign oil'. ADM is the big backer of corn-based ethanol.
They have lots of lobbyists and make lots of campaign contributions. The
farmers probably get a piece of it but the big beneficiary is ADM (and
the politicians they buy).

In article . com>, wrote:

> Besides the loss of gas mileage, I also noticed that there was
> a loss of power.

Then GM did it wrong. Ethanol has a higher octane and should have
produced more power if the engine management system was done right.
See the ford "Super Stallion" concept.