Jump to content

E-85 Refueling Events

minibike132

Recommended Posts

CKNSLS Enthusiast

CKNSLS

Posted
Posted

Hmmmm, E85 going for $2.99 with Unleaded at $3.69 so it's almost 20% cheaper per gallon...might just give a try this summer-didn't have any problems with it back in 2008 when we ran our Tahoe on it for 3 mos when Unleaded was going for $3.95...

 

You get 20% less mpg. So-you might want to do the math first to see if it pencils out. But you do get more horsepower from the E-85.

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
RyanbabZ71 Senior Enthusiast

RyanbabZ71

Posted
Posted
Hmmmm, E85 going for $2.99 with Unleaded at $3.69 so it's almost 20% cheaper per gallon...might just give a try this summer-didn't have any problems with it back in 2008 when we ran our Tahoe on it for 3 mos when Unleaded was going for $3.95...

 

You get 20% less mpg. So-you might want to do the math first to see if it pencils out. But you do get more horsepower from the E-85.

 

If you do the math you will see its less than 20% in most cases

 

My Tahoe was right at 10% less and my truck is like 15%

 

 

Ryan

 

 

  • 3 weeks later...
txdutt Enthusiast

txdutt

Posted
Posted

Filled up on E85 today, damn---$2.89 versus $3.69. Give it a shot this summer--I've avgd 16.2 mpg on RUG for the last 2 months in my normal driving/commute so we'll see how she does on moonshine this summer-see if the cost/benefit is worth it.

  • 1 month later...
mikemac4498 Enthusiast

mikemac4498

Posted
Posted

I was going to try the E85 next time I saw it and I'm glad I saw this thread first. It's out of my way so it's not something that I could switch to. After reading this, I'm just going to pass it by. Maybe if a station near me ever starts selling it I'll switch. Thanks for the great info.

  • 7 months later...
karlde Enthusiast

karlde

Posted
Posted

My truck is a '12 Sierra with a 5.3 and 3.42 rear. I don't live close to an e-85 station but started working 23 miles away. I started out running the fuel here in town, mostly Marathon. My gas mileage has averaged 15 mph since I have had it (bought it new). Now I fill up at the Flying J truck Stop at the exit I use to get to work. I have been running it e-85 all the time and my mileage is still 15 mpg. 90% of the drive is on an Interstate Highway and I drive 70, the posted speed limit or very close to it.

 

I haven't seen any difference in performance or mileage and it is usually less expensive than the regular stuff.

greg74 Enthusiast

greg74

Posted
Posted

You know the best way to refuel with E85? Never put that crap in your fuel tank to begin with. You gain so little because it doesn't cost that much less than regular fuel and you lose mileage so you basically don't gain anything. And if there's some stupid procedure to filling up that can easily be screwed up and make your truck run like crap, another reason to never use it. Or even damage your engine or fuel system, well count me out, I'll never touch the stuff. My truck is so old that it was never designed to run it anyway, not sure about my 2004 grand am but I'm never putting it in there anyway.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

You gain power and responsiveness. That's fact, period. The procedure is simple and E85 won't damage the fuel system if your vehicle is designed for it.

greg74 Enthusiast

greg74

Posted
Posted

You gain power and responsiveness. That's fact, period. The procedure is simple and E85 won't damage the fuel system if your vehicle is designed for it.

I'm pretty sure you LOSE POWER and fuel mileage by using E85. Your engine is designed to run best on gasoline. Some CAN run on E85 but its not what's best for the engine and its a compromise in performance to get fuel for a lower cost. No it shouldn't damage the engine but I'll never use it, its just worth it to me to even take the chance. I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere that might void your warranty if you have fuel system or engine problems associated with running too much of it.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

 

You gain power and responsiveness. That's fact, period. The procedure is simple and E85 won't damage the fuel system if your vehicle is designed for it.

 

 

I'm pretty sure you LOSE POWER and fuel mileage by using E85. Your engine is designed to run best on gasoline. Some CAN run on E85 but its not what's best for the engine and its a compromise in performance to get fuel for a lower cost. No it shouldn't damage the engine but I'll never use it, its just worth it to me to even take the chance. I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere that might void your warranty if you have fuel system or engine problems associated with running too much of it.

 

Not even close. Most of the 900-series and new K2s are absolutely fine on E85 and it is absolute fact that they make more power. On my 2011 5.3 it's only like 10-15 hp/lb-ft but the new 5.3 is substantially better. It comes at the cost of efficiency but I don't care.

00Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

00Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted

With the price jumping daily on the cost of regular it has actually been cheaper to run e85 in mine, both per gallon and per mile. E85 jumps maybe a dime, yet regular gas has gone from 3.27 to 3.67 just in the last few days. I almost at one year running e85 almost exclusively. I have filled my tank maybe twice with regular. I am consistantly getting 12mpg in town with e85 where I was getting 13 with regular. If I drive like a good boy I can another 1 mpg out of both fuels but I'm impatient with some of these people. I haven't really seen or felt anything drastically different. Like I've said before, it runs a bit smoother and I have never get the high rpm ping in this lovely Georgia heat like I would with regular gas.

  • 11 months later...
Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

Well, one does have to do the math to determine the cost per mile of different fuels. I didn't use E85 this winter because the price spread wasn't that great. But the previous winter, my 2013 lived on E85. I ran all the different fuels for a couple of tanks each to determine average mpg for each fuel. Then I just watch the pump price and determine what the cost per mile would be for each fuel at the current pricing. On E10 I was averaging about 16 mpg in my area. On E85, I averaged 13 mpg. Lets take a look at that and use the pricing mentioned by txdutt a few posts back. 2.89 for E85 vs 3.69. Those are old prices, but work for what we are doing here. At 2.89 for E85 and getting 13 mpg, that equates to a shade over 22 cents a mile. At 3.69 and 16 mpg, that equates to 23 cents a mile. The E85 is cheaper to use. Each vehicle will have different mpg averages for different fuels, I just used what my 2013 got.

 

Sure, it is painful to see a lower mpg when using E85, but you have to get behind that and actually see what it is costing per mile. I can handle a lower mpg if the actual cost per mile is lower as well. the winter of 2013/2014, E85 was a dollar a gallon lower than E10. It was costing me 18 cents a mile to use E85 and E10 was costing 21 cents a mile. What would you prefer? A nice mpg and a thinner wallet or a a low mpg and a fatter wallet?

00Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

00Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted

Unfortunately, I no longer have a vehicle that can "officially" run e85. However since my post of last year the price of e85 has been right about the same as regular so even if I was still driving my previous truck it wouldn't be cost effective to run e85. Now that I have a 6.0L it's not cost efficient no matter what I burn for fuel...lol

Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

Yeah, in a similar boat. I dumped my 2013 1500 5.3L for a 2015 2500HD 6.0L. Still can use E85 if I wanted, as it is also flex fuel, but the price spread has been so close that it really isn't a good deal. Now, I have been using E15 that has started showing up near me, and it is a pretty good value. I don't really lose any mpg and the cost is 20 cents a gallon lower than regular. Got a 16 mpg average out of it on a recent road trip, which is not bad for a 2500HD 6.0L 4.10 diff setup in the winter.

  • 5 months later...
Cowpie Senior Enthusiast

Cowpie

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure you LOSE POWER and fuel mileage by using E85. Your engine is designed to run best on gasoline. Some CAN run on E85 but its not what's best for the engine and its a compromise in performance to get fuel for a lower cost. No it shouldn't damage the engine but I'll never use it, its just worth it to me to even take the chance. I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere that might void your warranty if you have fuel system or engine problems associated with running too much of it.

 

 

Guess you never have seen the official LC9 5.3L power charts from GM themselves. E85 does improve both HP and Torque. Not some wild levels, but it does improve it. And there is no fine print somewhere about running too much of it.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...