Any reason I should not switch to E85?

Discussion in 'Performance & Fuel' started by Schaub, Mar 8, 2011.

  1. silverad01

    silverad01 New Member

    Beware, I see a few come into the shop with check engine light for p0171, p0174(lean both banks) and traction control lights(basically, calculating a power loss) while running e85 in an e85 capable truck. The fuel is garbage, burns up converters. Not worth it.
  2. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Right-the yeast do the heavy lifting-all those enzymes packaged perfectly
    but of course fermenting yeast has probably been selected by humans for maybe 5000-8000 years
    Maybe-probably-yeast have been genetically engineered for even better yield-and for drinkers-even better taste
    Ford built that fancy -extremely complicated 3.5 twin turbo-do do just what you said-get better mpg than the much bigger V-8s while getting as good-better-torque and HP
    Unfortunately for Ford GM has -for now- beaten its MPG with an updated 5.3-frankly I didn't think GM had anything left in the 5.3 in respect to improving mpg much-but i was wrong.
    There is a lot to be said for the SIMPLE LOW RPM BIG DISPLACEMENT V8
    cheap-good low RPM torque good hp
    But it SHOULDN'T be as inherently efficient as that 3.5 twin turbo??
    That 3.5 should make as much power at the same RPMS as the 5.3-and it has less surface area exposed to combustion gases losing heat-,and less bearing area friction losses-and less ring cal wall friction-so it SHOULD get better MPG??
    Ford no doubt will match and pass the 5.3-but surprised the 5.3 beat it-since MPG was the WHOLE point of that complicated expensive 3.5
    Shoot-look what Dodge did with a plain jane 3.6 V-6- 25 mpg!! No turbos!
    and GM still managing to get great efficiency HP etc with 2 valves and pushrods??
  3. silverad01

    silverad01 New Member

    amen brother
  4. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    Sorry to run on
    But gotta say I'm stunned that the pushrod 2 valve 5.3 V-8
    beat that 3.5 twin turbo in mpg-and all but matched it in HP torque
    and it MUST be cheaper to build-very important
    Gotta be cheaper to maintain repair-especially DIY
    Might be more reliable(should be more reliable-but who knows)
    Ford engineers must be stunned by GMs 5.3 and Dodges 3.6-

    FORDS entire selling point in pushing a V-6- was to say "it get better mpg than those V-8s-with same grunt-so you shouldn't mind dumping those crude old V-8s"

    Of course the 5.4- 3 valve-was a Ford cheap out-not a great motor for some reason-accountants must have driven the cheapout 3 valve choice!!
  5. tbplus10

    tbplus10 Epic Member Staff Member 5+ Years 5000 Posts Platinum Contributor

    You do realize GM and Ford are "cooperating" on future engine/transmission designs directed towards mpg and low rpms, the package purpose is to quit attemptiing to increase horsepower output and better use whats already been developed.
    They have 9 and 10 speed automatic transmissions designed for SUV and truck use in testing with different engine packages.
    And if some of the present transmissions share more than a passing similarity dont be surprised, this is their 3rd project working together on transmission design.
  6. Tungsten23

    Tungsten23 Rockstar

    Well, from what I know with Chemistry so far, The ethanol is a ethyl alcohol that breaks down and can create water, the OH bonds or "Hydrogen Bonds" are the weakest of many bonds and thus can create a H2O while combining with other elements. Water settles at the bottom of the fuel tank and can lead to loss of power in the combustion chamber due to the fact it is not combustible..

    Long story short, if you use it all in one go and flush it out every day or two with regular 100% fuel, you should be fine. However, if you set your vehicle off to the side and don't use the fuel, it will become separated into a mixture of deteriorated fuel and water.

Share This Page

Newest Gallery Photos