E85 gasoline?

[Farmer17]

Just bought a new 2018 Ram pickup with 305 HP V6 engine that will take E85 fuel and am wondering if there are any negatives to using it? The truck is rated at 17 city and 25 highway mpg, is this on all gasoline or just the good stuff? Unleaded gas is averaging about $2.49/gal around here and E85 is about 20 cents cheaper but I would prefer not to use it if E85 is harder on the seals or valves, and I heard it burns a bit hotter.

 

[Dave from Pa]

MPG is not as good as 10/15% ethanol mix.Lower price with less milage works out to about the same cost wise in the long run.I think the newer cars are equipped pretty well to deal with the negatives of ethanol.

 

[walnutred]

My 2003 Ford Ranger took E85 and as was mentioned fuel mileage was about 10% less than regular fuel. I'd run half a tank through the truck every month or so because I had been told it would help keep the fuel system clean. Don't know if that is true but she had around 230K on her when I traded it in and never had fuel system or engine issues.

 

[johngalt]

E85 had less energy stored, which means less mileage. I don't have a car that can use it, so I'm not sure about the economics of using it. I've read that in the long run the price does not compensate for the loss in mileage and is more expensive.

It only has an upside if the engine has been tuned to take advantage of the higher octane. GM used to sell 'flex fuel' cars, but I don't think they had multiple tunes/fuel maps to switch between regular and E85. It would have to be able to adapt to every mixture from E0 to E85 to get optimal performance, which it can't. they just had comonents to better resist the damage caused by it. I don't think the tune changed on the fly to improve performance much.

Some who people hot rod their cars use it for cheap racing fuel and have tuned their engines to run it exclusively. Those guys do get significantly better power. The rest of us, it has no benefit.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Just bought a new 2018 Ram pickup with 305 HP V6 engine that will take E85 fuel and am wondering if there are any negatives to using it? The truck is rated at 17 city and 25 highway mpg, is this on all gasoline or just the good stuff? Unleaded gas is averaging about $2.49/gal around here and E85 is about 20 cents cheaper but I would prefer not to use it if E85 is harder on the seals or valves, and I heard it burns a bit hotter.

As has been mentioned, E85 will drop your fuel mileage considerably, so in the long run it's not cheaper. I am unaware of any mechanical complications, but that doesn't mean there aren't any . . .

 

[NYlakesider]

I know a few people that bought E85 capable trucks. They tried it a few times and went back to the other gas.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

I cannot recall a single positive comment regarding the use of E85 in common automobiles or light trucks. Everyone I know who has tried it has reported reduced gas mileage and lower performance.

Here in Colorado the standard for regular gasoline is 85 octane, mid-grade is 87, premium is typically 89. Most other states specify 87 octane for "regular". Both of our vehicles were purchased new, and both came with manufacturers' specifications for 87 octane fuel, so that is what we use.

Colorado has also mandated ethanol-infused gasoline during certain times of the year (typically 10% ethanol by volume), leaving gas stations and customers no options. During those time periods I usually purchase "premium" fuel.

I have read a number of reports on the ethanol industry, which is heavily subsidized by our government, purportedly as a means for reducing harmful emissions. Most interesting, to me, are studies that show the consumption of fossil fuels (gasoline and diesel) in growing, harvesting, and shipping corn to ethanol production plants, as well as energy consumed in the production processes, is estimated to be between 3 and 5 gallons for each gallon of ethanol fuel produced. It would appear that the entire industry actually increases the use of fossil fuels while supposedly existing for the purpose of reducing fossil fuel use. Needless to say, industry subsidies (paid by tax dollars from consumers) greatly exceed any potential fuel cost savings at the pumps.

 

[SC_Mike]

I haven't tried E85 in my 2011 Tundra and probably won't. But I do know I get better mileage with non ethanol regular fuel over the 10% ethanol regular but its not enough for me to offset the .50 cent/gal price difference. I'm sure it delivers more power but I'm not using all the HP it produces now.

 

[g8rb8]

I have not encountered any mechanical negatives while talking with a number of car enthusiasts or mechanics. On the other hand the lower energy per unit of E85 has already been addressed. LoboGunLeather brings up the interesting topic of real cost versus benefit.

While talking with a young adult last night about various fuels for cars I opined any system that is acted upon by an outside force will shift away from it's natural equilibrium and there are frequently unintended consequences, both bad and good.

While cause and effect cannot be proved there is evidence that corn subsidies may not be helpful to our overall health.

If I recall correctly sometime in the 1970's subsidies for corn increased (?).

 

[MRB1]

I don't recall ever having any fuel related issues with my cars, trucks, or small engines until the government decided they would decide what was best for me. I'll go out of my way to avoid any new fuel products.

 

[pawngal]

Whether I use E85 in my Tundra is totally a price consideration.
The drop in MPG is a lot. E85 has to be at least 70 cents a gallon less for me to use it. I have switched back and forth a lot of times with no issues.

 

[johngalt]

I have read a number of reports on the ethanol industry, which is heavily subsidized by our government, purportedly as a means for reducing harmful emissions. Most interesting, to me, are studies that show the consumption of fossil fuels (gasoline and diesel) in growing, harvesting, and shipping corn to ethanol production plants, as well as energy consumed in the production processes, is estimated to be between 3 and 5 gallons for each gallon of ethanol fuel produced. It would appear that the entire industry actually increases the use of fossil fuels while supposedly existing for the purpose of reducing fossil fuel use. Needless to say, industry subsidies (paid by tax dollars from consumers) greatly exceed any potential fuel cost savings at the pumps.

I knew that ethanol production consumed more energy than it supplied, but didn't know it was that bad. But yet the scam is perpetuated.

 

[woodsltc]

I haven't tried E85 in my 2011 Tundra and probably won't. But I do know I get better mileage with non ethanol regular fuel over the 10% ethanol regular but its not enough for me to offset the .50 cent/gal price difference. I'm sure it delivers more power but I'm not using all the HP it produces now.

Same here....I have a 2010 FJ-Cruiser and see the same thing. I do use the non-ethanol fuel whenever I'm pulling a trailer for the increase in power.

Don

 

[mike from st pete]

Ethanol i.e. corn liquor belongs in a jug.
Gasoline should never have been diluted with ethanol. But thanks to Sen. Bob Dole we got fleeced into this as a way to circumvent the OPEC guys and stretch our crude oil.
Union76 was the first fuel outlet in my area to offer 10%E fuel back in the 1970s. Once tried I stopped because some of the plastic parts in the fuel system were adversely affected by the ethanol. I should have known since the family's racers were running 100% methanol a close cousin to ethanol. The carburetors had to be retrofitted to remove the plastic and rubber seals and needle jets. Two and half times more fuel was needed. Instead of 15:1 air to fuel the ratio needed was more like 7:1.
As an aside octane is the resistance to engine knock or pre-ignition. The higher the octane the higher the combustion chamber ratio, at 105 octane a 10.5:1 ratio makes use of the higher resistance to pre-ignition. Also the ignition can be advanced a few more degrees making more power in theory.
Since I know of no way to vary the combustion chamber ratio only the ECM computer can advance the ignition timing.
Personally I feel that wasting good corn liquor to drive down the road is nonsensical and of little savings. Only the farmers in the corn belt may be benefiting from this mandate.

 

[hoc9sw]

My Jeep GC will take the ethanol, but my mechanic insists that mileage will be significantly lower, so don't come complaining to him (seems that is common, folks expect the same mileage, and are disappointed). As well, he suggests that if I were to change over, to stay with it, as all this new onboard electronics will start picking up the differences, and auto-adjust. So switching back and forth can cause issues with performance in general, not just fuel economy.

I did have to use it during a hurricane-induced gas outage here, but I was not happy with the engine behavior, and only ran one tank of it. That was what provoked my questions to the mechanic.

 

[DWalt]

My 2003 Ford Ranger took E85 and as was mentioned fuel mileage was about 10% less than regular fuel. I'd run half a tank through the truck every month or so because I had been told it would help keep the fuel system clean. Don't know if that is true but she had around 230K on her when I traded it in and never had fuel system or engine issues.

I have that same Ranger with E85 capability but have never used E85 in it. I'd try it, but I don't ever remember seeing a gas station which had an E85 dispenser.

 

[Eddietruett]

I drive 60k a year in my truck. I tried E85 after seeing the cheap price which is not as cheap now in comparison to regular gas as it was then. After a week of running it and keeping close mpg logs and comparing it to regular gas, it was actually costing me more! A mechanic told me it was no better for an engine but could find where it was harmful. Not sure why when rated as a higher octane, it did not show any more power when passing or from a start. I'm sure there is an advantage somewhere to someone or it wouldn't be produced. Only thing that makes sense to me is the refineries are making more money

 

[Ribwizzard]

And e85 is less stable, ( goes stale quicker) so if your not putting the miles on the car , your losing money as it sits in your tank.

 

[Narragansett]

I would not touch it. Actually I used to burn 10% gas that was Gulf brand. One day I was walking back to the car, and I noticed all black soot on the exhaust pipe. I thought the car was running rich. Did some research on gasoline, and called Gulf distributor. They put additives that MEET EPA standards. well further search took me to " TOP TIER " gasoline ( google it). Shell, Mobil, Exxon and others. They use better detergents. So I switched, and now I look at the exhaust pipe, and it looks like new galvanized metal. Point being, my valves look the same way. Just burn 87 grade top tier gasoline, and forget about the high fructose additives

 

[Whitwabit]

My wife accidently put it in her jeep and it pinged very bad .. so bad I drained it and put fresh regular gas in it .. was ok after that .. used the gas on a bon fire and it did not explode like gas normally does ..

Wouldn't use it from my research from that incident fuel mileage will be
25 to 35 percent less so you don't save anything ..