with 3$ gas id love to use e85 we got plenty of it here but i dont think i can use it in mine. i got a 2006 but i dont see anywhere it sayin flex fuel, i heard it would ruin the motor, i dont want that.

 

I'd stay away from it.

For one, if it was set up to properly burn E85, the manufacturer would surely have labels and such to advertise their products' "green-ness". I think the current indicator is a yellow gas cap and flashy badges, at least on some newer vehicles.

Alcohol is a bad actor if the motor and fuel system are not designed for it.

For another, and perhaps more important, point - E85 has only about 75% of the BTUs per gallon as regular unleaded. Heat is what makes an internal combustion engine 'go'. Many people that use E85 complain about significant mileage drops, this lower heat content is why.

Essentially, for the personal pocketbook only and not taking into consideration one's position on the environment - E85 would need to sell for about 75% of the cost of regular unleaded to achieve the same BTU per dollar benefit.

 

Racin, DON'T run it in your 2006. It's not compatible. An accidental tank is one thing, but purposefully filling is a no-no.

As for BTU's of E85, it is less compared to standard unleaded, but E85 is higher octane than unleaded gasoline (about 105). Those I know who complain only mixed partial tanks of E85 with gasoline rather than running most of their unleaded out before refilling with E85. I ran several tanks of almost 99% E85 through my 2007 F-150 Fuel-Flex, and I'll tell you first hand, it was a totally different engine. The power and snap was far better than standard unleaded, and if I ever have the chance, I'd run it again over gasoline any day - it was that different. I averaged 17 with unleaded, and 13 with E85. The cost difference then was about $0.45 cheaper with E85 - hardly any savings, but the "pep" to me was worth it. And, I'll stress, it was 99.9% all E85 in my tanks.

 

I think it's communist. It's only useful quality in most of the country is high octane, depending on how good it is normally between 105 & 115.

great for forced induction if you can't afford race gas, or refuse water/alcohol injection. however if you don't have forced induction (or a ludicrious amout of effectiv compression on an N/A engine) it simply breaks the laws of physics... by sucking and blowing at the same time.
ethanol is communist anyway. mileage tanks, making it more expencive than 87 in almost the whole country. power production is grossly less unless you can take advantage of the pre-ignition resistance (N/A engines do NOT). the US doesn't have enough farmland to make a dent in the gas consumption even if you got farmers to sell all of their international crops (8% of the US foriegn trade no less!).

the only place on earth that could supply the commy ethanol lobby with enough crops to dent the US consumption needs is africa... which would turn soooooo baaaaaaaad it would make the middle east look like california. and i mean the hippie part with the rainbows and forests, talking animals. you know, where the nude 18-19yo playboy bunnie hopefuls live!

lol!

 

btw in general... if an engine is not able to deal with the large change in A/F ratio requirements going from gas to ethanol blends. 10% ethyl alcohol content is, in general, as high as you want to go with it.

most OEM's rate ECU's calible of closed loop feedback at 10% ethanol on average.

 

Wow, you must have had a totally different experience than I, and have a different take. At worst, unless you drive with a lead foot, the cost per gallon savings is equal to the loss in economy making it a "wash". As far as the power, as I stated above, E85 certainly produced more than 87 octane unleaded for me. I burned several tanks in a row, and they were in one week as I average 800-1000 miles week. Until somone comes out with something better, E85 is as good as an alternative fuel we'll get I guess.

 

ppp

 

WRONG!!! Check you window sticker, or read the sticker on your gas lid. My 07 KR has none of what the gentlemen mentions above, and it is E85 compatible.

I do agree E85 is crap. Food as fuel is ingnorant. Are there not people starving somewhere? We put corn in our tanks?

 

Wow! We've got some strong opinions on both sides.

As one can see from my vintage - not totally up to speed on the different manners in which newer vehicles are labeled as far as fuel capabilities. Was relating my experience with company vehicles, which in spite of my best efforts, are GM products.

In my area, E85 is selling for only about $0.10 less than regular unleaded. For $3 per gallon, only talking a 3-4% price difference for a fuel that has 25% less heat content per gallon. IMO, that makes it a more expensive fuel based solely on MPG (don't even want to go into the environmental arguments).

If the setup is such to take advantage of the higher octane, yes - use of E85 should see performance increases.

With the cost differences in fuel in this particular area, still not convinced that E85 wins out over regular unleaded unless one has very specific performance goals.

 

My 07 KR says it is ethanol compatible on the window sticker and on the gas door.

I have ran several consecutive tanks of E85 through my truck (it was almost empty on the first fill up so yes, the gas was at least 95% E85 in the tank)and have found the power and fuel mileage severly lacking. E85 is not worth running (especially if you tow). I will gladly use it in an emergency, but I will not go out of my way to buy it or use it if regular unleaded is at the same station.