Some of you guys from the thread down the page aways who claim very little mileage loss when they burn E85 should be sure NOT to click on the link below!
2014 mileage figures
2014 mileage figures
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
I will not enter into the fray, but I do know that NONE of those vehicles listed will ever achieve the EPA estimated fuel economy figures. The only way to make a fair comparison between regular gasoline and E85 is in REAL world driving, and figuring the fuel mileage with pencil and paper. The on-board computers NEVER give true readings.
Gary Mitchell
Well-known Member
On the other hand, don"t forget the cost in grocery prices.
T in NE
Well-known Member
- Location
- Cambridge, Nebraska
When I had the V6 chevy I got better mileage with 87 E10 than I did 89 regular.
With what I got now (90 Isuzu Amigo) I don't see any difference between sober gas and e10. But the driving I do and the fact that a previous owner put in a cam based solely on HP and not driveability doesn't help it either.
With what I got now (90 Isuzu Amigo) I don't see any difference between sober gas and e10. But the driving I do and the fact that a previous owner put in a cam based solely on HP and not driveability doesn't help it either.
My mind wanders back a few years ago when somebody was putting on meetings around here to get people to sell moth balls as some fuel additive claiming they were some magic additive that increased mileage. One of the members of Board of Review with me got suckered in to selling them. She told us she was using them herself and swore right up and down she had gained 2mpg.
I don't know if I'll ever let her forget that. A lot of people around here got suckered in that one.
I guess if you're careful and subconsciously change your driving habits,anything will increase mileage,or conversely,decrease it.
I don't know if I'll ever let her forget that. A lot of people around here got suckered in that one.
I guess if you're careful and subconsciously change your driving habits,anything will increase mileage,or conversely,decrease it.
My man you are wrong there. I know how to figure gas millage and ever gallon that goes in our fleet is recorded and the f 150 fords will be within 1% of any figure any time. Very accurate fuel millage right off the computer and I am no talking about for one week or one trip but over two years and 60 thousand miles.
John M
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nunyafn business
Oh, really, Never? Much like the information on this website huh?!
Brown Swiss
Well-known Member
Said it many times, ethanol takes a higher compression than gasoline. Perfect example would be the Oliver xo121 compared to the 77. 77 has a 198 cubic inch motor and the xo 121 had 199 and the xo121 has 12 to 1 compression. xo 121 had 44% more power and 28% more fuel efficient.
xo121 click me and learn
xo121 click me and learn
High Octane
Member
i know of a super m farmall that runs on it, itll drink 10-12 gallons per hour.
Ethanol isn't as efficient as gas gallon per gallon. Ethanol puts out about 76,000 BTUs while gas puts out about 114,000 BTUs. So if you boost the octane in gas enough to run in a 12 or 13 to 1 engine, gas will produce more power than ethanol. They used ethanol because it's harder to ignite and therefore it doesn't fire by detonation as easy as gas does. Direct injection is what make it work the best as far as getting rid of the detonation problem.
Rick
GOOD post, Tank!
Problem is, the typical production flex-fuel engines aren't variable compression ratio, and can"t take advantage of running a higher compression ratio for the higher-octane product, and get close to 30% less MPG when running on E85, as I posted before.
The EPA site I linked to confirms that, even for the latest production year (2014) vehicles.
It amazes me that some many disagree with test-derived figures and BELIEVE they get so much better mileage with THEIR vehicle!
Even if you think the EPA mileage numbers are still a bit inflated, comparing the two mileages for the SAME vehicle shows the large difference.
Same way with the Nebraska tractor tests of fuel economy.
16 to 19 HP hours per gallon of diesel has been about as good as it gets, yet some guys have tractors that REALLY must sip fuel!
Problem is, the typical production flex-fuel engines aren't variable compression ratio, and can"t take advantage of running a higher compression ratio for the higher-octane product, and get close to 30% less MPG when running on E85, as I posted before.
The EPA site I linked to confirms that, even for the latest production year (2014) vehicles.
It amazes me that some many disagree with test-derived figures and BELIEVE they get so much better mileage with THEIR vehicle!
Even if you think the EPA mileage numbers are still a bit inflated, comparing the two mileages for the SAME vehicle shows the large difference.
Same way with the Nebraska tractor tests of fuel economy.
16 to 19 HP hours per gallon of diesel has been about as good as it gets, yet some guys have tractors that REALLY must sip fuel!
John M
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nunyafn business
Not sure where Edmunds gets its data from, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that the info provided for my particular truck is dead WRONG! No way has it EVER gotten that kind of mileage, except it got the city mileage on the highway the one time I took it on a trip with just me in the truck.
1948CaseVAI
Well-known Member
Toyota left no confusion for me - in big print in the manual for my 13 Tundra it states that use of E85 voids the warranty. Period. I could have purchased a 'flex fuel' model but I don't like the whole ethanol deal in the first place and wasn't about to pay extra for that.
Brown Swiss
Well-known Member
All I said was ethanol needs more compression to be more efficient. Yes I am sure if you run gas 12 to 1 ratio it would have more power but if you worked it it would have a melt down because of the higher btu. The ethanol has the advantage of running at a higher ratio and stay cool. I'm not disagreeing at all about the fuel mileage in the cars. All I am saying and read it close, ethanol needs its own engine running around 14to1 , like a diesel has its own at 16to1 and gas has its own at 7to1. No need to argue, and make the gang down below giggle. Have a great day Tank.
Tom, modern gas engines with low compression compared to yesteryear, are running 10:1 or 10.5:1 ratios. Some high output engines from the late 60's ran as high as 11:1 on pump gas. But back in the day 99 octane was available at the pump. The higher the octane the higher the flash point. And if it were true about melting pistons because of the BTUs you couldn't run a diesel at all. They run something like 16:1 and diesel has a higher BTU rating than gas. 147,000 BTUs. Making it about twice a efficient as ethanol and a little more than 1/4 efficient than gas.
Rick
Brown Swiss
Well-known Member
Thanks for the info, you were around longer than I.
Indiana Ken
Well-known Member
E-85 will get less mileage when used in engines designed for gasoline. The current E-85 vehicles came into being to get around CAFE mileage requirements. However, it does not have to be that way. Ricardo Inc., Van Buren TWP., Mi. has designed ethanol specific engines and demonstrated economy comparable to engines using higher Btu fuels.
If the link does not work, just copy and paste into google:
Ricardo Inc. Focused on Improving Ethanol - Engine Fueled Efficiency
Ethanol burns with a cleaner flash wave, and in an engine designed for it with the right compression and all it will burn much more efficiently, far less heat wasted by the cooling system.
This allows a fuel with less btu per gallon to get about the same mpg as a fuel that has a higher btu per gallon.
Of course our engines are designed to burn dirty gasoline, and not take advantage of the better parts of ethanol.
For the best mpg vs cost it seems most engines since 2000 would find a sweet spot at E25-E30. That is where the cost of fuel per mile will be the lowest, lower than E85 and lower than straight gasoline.
Paul
This allows a fuel with less btu per gallon to get about the same mpg as a fuel that has a higher btu per gallon.
Of course our engines are designed to burn dirty gasoline, and not take advantage of the better parts of ethanol.
For the best mpg vs cost it seems most engines since 2000 would find a sweet spot at E25-E30. That is where the cost of fuel per mile will be the lowest, lower than E85 and lower than straight gasoline.
Paul
No knowledgeable ethanol supporter is ever going to tell you that mileage is equal. But do the math....mileage and difference in cost per gallon. We"re money ahead when eth is 40 cents cheaper than E10. Lately it"s been a margin of 90 cents to a buck. And the guy complaining about usage in an M Farmall? That tractor was not designed for eth!.
huntingreen2day2
Member
Never been $ 1 cheaper where I live in Tn. might be 30 cents cheaper.
DaninKansas
Member
Actually very few engines ran 11:1 compression back in the 1960s - and those did were the high performance cars and to take advantage of the compression ratio guys were buying aviation fuel to run down the 1/4 mile. The typical v8 and I6 engine in the other 99.9% of the vehicles ran around 8.5:1 to 9.5:1 compression ratio to use cheaper lower rated octane rated fuel.
The Ford 428 CJ ran 10.6:1 and required premium fuel, the typical 390 engine that went in most of the 4 doors and pickups was 9.5:1 and went to 8.5:1 after 1971.
Most engines today run 9.5:1 to 10.5:1 and run on 83 octane.
The Ford 428 CJ ran 10.6:1 and required premium fuel, the typical 390 engine that went in most of the 4 doors and pickups was 9.5:1 and went to 8.5:1 after 1971.
Most engines today run 9.5:1 to 10.5:1 and run on 83 octane.
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
What I don't understand is how a bunch of you guys can come to this site and BASH the farmer who grows the corn that gets turned into ethanol. After all, this website IS called YESTERDAY'S TRACTORS. We are talking about FARM tractors. This whole site was created for the purpose of educating us on the repair, restoration, and proper use of FARM tractors. If you guys want to continually BASH the folks who are feeding you, maybe there is another site you should be visiting. A site where the participants will willingly drink the kool-aid you are serving up, 'cause most of us on THIS site are not drinking it.
DaninKansas
Member
Agreed - they are not variable compression - but they are variable timed. You can advance the timing without incuring knock with higher octane fuel.
DaninKansas
Member
Don't forget how much to add your tax money that goes to fight wars in the Middle East either.
Frankly I'd rather my money went to a taxpaying American farmer than some rag head in the middle east buring the US flag (thats made in China).
Frankly I'd rather my money went to a taxpaying American farmer than some rag head in the middle east buring the US flag (thats made in China).
Rusty, not bashing farmers in general. Just the ones who place their trust in companies claiming to make a safe product when chemical companies in general and companies making herbicides specifically have a very poor record for making a safe product. And all over profit. If you raised the price from sprays and GMO seed to the point where they were not going to make one dime extra they wouldn't be so pleased with them and if they could make more money going back to cultivation they would be right there. These same guys will scream bloody murder about companies being greedy should they pay low wages (like a lot of farmers do), do something that might be unsafe or produce a cheap, questionable or possibly dangerous product. In my book you walk the walk. It's either anything goes for everyone and every company or it's not. People wonder that's wrong with the country? It's this double standard we've accepted as long as it's good for us. We, in general are no longer ethical. By the way, I farm too. I just don't put profit over what may harm my grandkids.
I should add that I only use products with cane sugar and raise most of the rest of my food so they ain't feeding me.
Rick
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
I'm not a real fan of the chemicals either, but until someone figures out a way to stop growing houses and shopping malls on our prime farm ground, we need those chemicals so we can produce enough food to feed the world.
Well Rusty when we do actually feed the world you let me know. But as long as we import food to include beef and dairy products we are not even feeding ourselves.
Actually I'm not a fan of "urban sprawl" either. But on the other hand there are about 30 some million acres of land in CRP so we are not running out of land for now.
And I'm not bashing farmers. I'm bashing people who put absolute faith into a product that may prove to be unsafe years later. Just because they happen to be farmers doesn't give them a free ride in my book.
Rick
Galen Houk
Member
Isn't it possible to think ethanol is a bad idea without hating farmers? I grew up on a farm and farmed on the side for many years myself. Most of my best friends are farmers. I was raised to love the environment and you are entitled to your opinion but I think that overall ethanol does more harm to the environment than good. I very much appreciate that farmers feed the world but ethanol uses food to make gasoline. This makes it harder for farmers to feed the world and makes it harder for poor people to buy food. As far as being on this site, my son has always wanted to farm and I have always wanted him to experience all the good things that come from growing up on a farm. Neither of us can ever dream of being able to afford to get into farming but what we can do is collect a few tractors. He goes to local shows and even an occasional rookie tractor pull. I love seeing him on a tractor. Again, use all the ethanol you want but don't make it a government mandate. After all of these years it should be able to stand on its own.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy