Jump to content

Been running E85

crushNchowda

Recommended Posts

crushNchowda Senior Enthusiast

crushNchowda

Posted
Posted

So I have a 2014 sierra AT w/ 5.3 and 3.42 rear, CC 4wd. I started running E85 just for the hell of it as I noticed a station that carried it near my work, and I have a company gas card so I figured the lower mileage wouldn't be as big a deal, plus ee85 is cheaper.

 

Well- 3 things I have learned (truck has 27,000 miles on it and up until the last 2 tanks I always ran premium) 1- E85 results in a noticeable power/torque increase after only about 20-30 miles of driving- truck pulls much harder particularly down low, I always felt the pickup from 70-90mph was actually pretty outstanding for a truck this size w/ a modest V8, but w/ the E85 now it really screams. 2- the mpg is also noticeably lower....now I have been driving w/ a lead foot for sure especially since I started running it, but I am averaging only 12.8 mpg vs. around 15.5 for the same type of driving. 3- 93 octane also seems to result in better performance/smoother idle and better mpg compared to 87. I have now drained my tank (very very low fuel warning) filled w/ 87 and after 20/30 miles it seems to ping a bit and run a but leaner also seems to be more anemic pulling on the highway. Mpg back up to 15.7 same commute

 

Now finally running 93 again and averaged 20.8 mpg on a 70 miles highway ride (not a fair comparison to the other tanks) but definitely pulling a bit harder than the 87 and idling smoother- power is only slightly different than 87, again I'd say its "smoother delivery" and I know that's not scientific, the power jump from 93 to E85 is substantial particularly in this colder weather and worth it to put a grin on your face.

 

I have driven the 6.2 and although new and not broken in like my truck I can honestly say it'd be REALLY difficult to tell the difference between a 5.3 w/ E85 in the tank vs a 6.2 on premium

 

Question- does the 6.2 take E85 because that'd be interesting!

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

So I have a 2014 sierra AT w/ 5.3 and 3.42 rear, CC 4wd. I started running E85 just for the hell of it as I noticed a station that carried it near my work, and I have a company gas card so I figured the lower mileage wouldn't be as big a deal, plus ee85 is cheaper.

 

Well- 3 things I have learned (truck has 27,000 miles on it and up until the last 2 tanks I always ran premium) 1- E85 results in a noticeable power/torque increase after only about 20-30 miles of driving- truck pulls much harder particularly down low, I always felt the pickup from 70-90mph was actually pretty outstanding for a truck this size w/ a modest V8, but w/ the E85 now it really screams. 2- the mpg is also noticeably lower....now I have been driving w/ a lead foot for sure especially since I started running it, but I am averaging only 12.8 mpg vs. around 15.5 for the same type of driving. 3- 93 octane also seems to result in better performance/smoother idle and better mpg compared to 87. I have now drained my tank (very very low fuel warning) filled w/ 87 and after 20/30 miles it seems to ping a bit and run a but leaner also seems to be more anemic pulling on the highway. Mpg back up to 15.7 same commute

 

Now finally running 93 again and averaged 20.8 mpg on a 70 miles highway ride (not a fair comparison to the other tanks) but definitely pulling a bit harder than the 87 and idling smoother- power is only slightly different than 87, again I'd say its "smoother delivery" and I know that's not scientific, the power jump from 93 to E85 is substantial particularly in this colder weather and worth it to put a grin on your face.

 

I have driven the 6.2 and although new and not broken in like my truck I can honestly say it'd be REALLY difficult to tell the difference between a 5.3 w/ E85 in the tank vs a 6.2 on premium

 

Question- does the 6.2 take E85 because that'd be interesting!

I have been running E85 for most of the 10K miles on my truck, I lost 2 MPG in town and 3 on the hwy. Its cheaper than 93 the next best by a 1$ in my area, my truck hates 87 gas, you really notice it. Even if the price was the same id use it for the performance. I did lots of research before I bought my truck,and was going to buy the 6.2. When I read that E85 in the 5.3 got you within 40HP and TQ., and the different fuel options I bought the 5.3. The 6.2 your stuck with premium fuel. Then the price for the upgrade.
gone_fishing Enthusiast

gone_fishing

Posted
Posted

I was running E85 for a while this fall. It was $0.90-$1.00 cheaper a gallon then 87 gasoline. Now that gasoline has dropped, the spread is less and I'm running gas again (that and E85 causes the engine to start harder when it's cold out). When I was on E85 I lost about 2 MPG on the highway which I didn't think was too bad since it was about a $1.00 less a gallon. Plus the extra power was nice. I also noticed how much longer it would stay in V4 mode. I have a ScanGauge hooked up my truck monitoring timing and knock retard (KR). When on E85, total timing advance when in V4 mode was much higher and without any KR. When running 87 gas, there can be quite a bit of KR when in V4 mode which eventually causes the engine to kick out of V4 mode and go back to V8. I think this ability to stay in V4 mode longer and easier (depending on wind and speed) does offset the fuel economy reduction that E85 brings normally brings. From my observations, the 5.3 likes the higher octane of E85.

EaZ8 Enthusiast

EaZ8

Posted
Posted

i wish we had a E85 gas station in my area.

i think i read there are only 2 in all of ontario.....

fondupot Senior Enthusiast

fondupot

Posted
Posted

I used E85 for a while and while the power increase was nice. I was getting like 12-13 mpg around town. And E85 prices by me weren't low enough to justify using it.

 

The increase in power was nice. But I get similar results with my Blackbear tune on regular 89 octane.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I used E85 for a while and while the power increase was nice. I was getting like 12-13 mpg around town. And E85 prices by me weren't low enough to justify using it.

 

The increase in power was nice. But I get similar results with my Blackbear tune on regular 89 octane.

I have a hard time not getting KR without a tune on 89 octane. One of the things a tune does is advance the timing, it would be hard to gain 25HP like on E85 with a 89 tune. I guess the drivability improvement with a Blackbear tune would feel like more power. Then theres that tune warranty question that concern some people, makes E85 cheap power.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Hdwrguy
      2027 Chevrolet Silverado: Official Discussion

      By Hdwrguy · Posted

      So after reading the reveal from Chevrolet, I kept asking myself...why did the trim levels change?   Here are the official ones:   Work Truck (WT): The quintessential fleet truck, built with durable, easy-to-clean interiors for commercial or utilitarian use. Custom: A stylish, road-oriented trim that adds a more refined appearance, standard dual exhaust, and modern exterior styling. Custom Trail Boss: An entry-level off-roader featuring a 2-inch factory suspension lift and 34-inch mud-terrain tires on a budget. Silverado: Serving as the new base consumer truck (replacing the previous LT trim), it comes standard with the Z71 off-road package when equipped with 4WD. Trail Boss: Steps up the off-road hardware with the 2-inch lift, 34-inch tires, monotube shocks, an exclusive off-road hood, and more premium interior options. ZR2: The flagship off-roader. It boasts 35-inch mud-terrain tires, Multimatic DSSV dampers, front and rear electronic lockers, forged carbon-fiber interior accents, and an available hardcore Bison Edition (co-developed with AEV). High Country: The pinnacle of luxury. It replaces bright chrome with modern satin chrome, 22-inch wheels, premium leather, real wood interior trim, a panoramic sunroof, and an exclusive front-passenger touchscreen. As others have stated, why would you want a Silverado - 'Silverado' - wth?? LT needs to remain!!!   Also, there will no longer be a dedicated Z71 model.  All 4x4 trucks will have the Z71 package. Carplay is also something that cannot be removed.  Hopefully it will remain.     I am excited about the 5.7L V8 (350 C.I.D.)  Old school Chevy power.  My only concern is whatever version of AFM/DFM cylinder deactivation.  Too bad that isn't an option a buyer can choose to have or not.   I will definitely be stopping by my local dealership when these trucks start showing up.
    • richard wysong
      Gas Prices

      By richard wysong · Posted

      I haven't seen diesel for less than $5.30 anywhere in my area
    • Chuck FB
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      The not as clean as one would assume theme with the new engine oil, that reminds me of comments over the years with mechanics not always being so on board with filling an oil filter, not from the center anyway due to that typically being the clean side of the filter, danger of some contaminant falling into the filter if not careful but the realization now that the oil may not be as pure as one had assumed it would surely be. Yes it would be possible to fill from the small holes but that means messing with something to prop open the anti drain back valve if the filter is so equipped and not damage that valve in the process. Me, I have hardly ever prefilled an engine oil filter however I have prefilled diesel fuel filters with a filter on a fuel bulk tank and for anyone that has messed with diesel engines with filters and units that have a limited or no way of priming them, putting on a dry filter is a bad day to say the least with those crappy systems. But anyway back to not so clean engine oil, indeed perhaps its not so bad after all that I have not made a practice of prefilling oil filters.    As Grumpy Bear commented on keeping things clean, that I really have to wonder what the typical practice is at a dealer or any other shop that changes engine oil, do they make sure to wipe or wash off the oil plug and certainly if it fell into some gunk or onto a dirty floor, or that they wiped the filter mounting flange and didn't go and use some dirty rag and end up adding dirt to the inside of the head of the filter mount. Or be careless in how they stored or handled the new filter and if they were bumping into items under the vehicle with the filter opening facing up and having dirt drop right into the filter and if so right into the threaded center that is on the clean side. The top side, did they clean away the built up gunk that may be around the filler before removing the cap or to be really careful at that point that something right close to the filler hole that was hidden under the caps flange won't fall into the engine. Or did they clean the funnel or was that just laying there covered in oil from the oil change before and dust kicked up from sweeping the floor stuck to the oil and now that will go running into the next persons engine due to just not cleaning the funnel as "they won't know anyway" attitude as that young guy is more worried about taking a break so he can go outside and smoke a joint. Just random points that came to mind when I think about what some hired personnel may do that the shop foreman has no idea of or perhaps the whole attitude of some shops may be "eh ... who cares, they will never know the difference anyway".  
    • CamGTP
      Gas Prices

      By CamGTP · Posted

      $3.69 for 87 octane.   $4.24 for Diesel in town.
    • Atlas
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Atlas · Posted

      On the subject of OLM, Gm's OLM tool may be more "informed" than others brands. I recall OLM's in mid-2000's Chrysler products literally counting down a set number of miles. That's all the OLM appeared to be.    I would actually expect GM to be able to explain the parameters that their OLM takes into account from a high level. No, I would not expect them to disclose their software coding or data analysis around their parameters.   So we're talking about two different topics, so to continue the subject on the other one, I'd be curious to know how much "standard particulate matter" in fresh oil is able to be filtered at first start by a fresh oil filter. How much particulate matter is enough to "matter"?   I.e. how much of a "lever" do we think this equates to (variability in particulate content, in fresh oils, between different makes/brands, some which filter less, and some that filter more).   We can say that more particles = more wear = shorter engine life as a logical statement and use that data with a little marketing to scare people into selecting a more refined/filtered oil. Using a similie, is this like deciding to forego two alcoholic drinks in a lifetime because we're worried about the potential impact on lifespan? Are there numbers which translate the ISO test results into a quantifiable increase in wear for a given engine/use case?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...