E 85

[asicsrunner]

according to the ethanol people, ALL dodge caravans 1998-2003 with the 3.3 motor are able to burn E85. Mine does not have a sticker on the fuel door. Here is my hypothesis: Since mine was built in Canada, for the Canadian market (since been shipped to the states)...it was given a sticker saying "unleaded fuel only" and something in French which means the same...I am guessing that that is the ONLY difference. I am guessing they had to put that sticker on because the Canadian government had not approved this particular vehicle for E85 at that time.

Chrysler tells me no, I should not burn E85...and they only had a very lame explanation about how the motor has different parts. The guy from Chrysler launched into some explanation about how diesel is also a flexible fuel, and that that would harm my motor...duhh...I knew that..

Would the 3.3 they were dropping in up in ontario really be all that different they were dropping in down in Detroit????

I am going to research the parts today. For instance, if the fuel line and tanks are the same, I am guessing that it's all the same. What else could be different?

With gas over 2.60 a gallon now, I would rather support my local corn farmer than the big oil corporations and the saudi royal family.
asicsrunner

[Stretch58]

Using 85% Ethanol in a car not set up for it, is looking for trouble. Several fuel system parts other than the engine, have to be designed for that mixture or internal corrosion in a very short period of time can result. 10% Ethanol is a better bet for now. If you go ahead with it anyway, let us know the result in a few months. I have a 3.3 E85 Dodge and still do not use E85 due to reported decreased mileage.

[neon_rt]

Don't do it.
The 3.3's that can use E85 have a sensor to determine the mixture of alcohol and gas. Gas needs a air/fuel mixture of about 14:1, pure alcohol needs about 6:1. The sensor helps the FI computer to determine the mix from about 8:1 to 14:1. If you put E85 in your tank, even if the fuel system can take it without damage, the mixture will be wrong and the engine will not run and you will be looking for someone who can drain your tank and dispose of the useless fuel.
Most E85 is cheaper because the Feds subsidize it. However, since your fuel mileage drops in half and you must use special motor oil for E85 and you must change it every 3,000 miles, it is probably not worth the trouble.

[asicsrunner]

Originally Posted by neon_rt

Don't do it.
The 3.3's that can use E85 have a sensor to determine the mixture of alcohol and gas. Gas needs a air/fuel mixture of about 14:1, pure alcohol needs about 6:1. The sensor helps the FI computer to determine the mix from about 8:1 to 14:1. If you put E85 in your tank, even if the fuel system can take it without damage, the mixture will be wrong and the engine will not run and you will be looking for someone who can drain your tank and dispose of the useless fuel.
Most E85 is cheaper because the Feds subsidize it. However, since your fuel mileage drops in half and you must use special motor oil for E85 and you must change it every 3,000 miles, it is probably not worth the trouble.

I see your point. Maybe it's not worth it but i have heard of mileage drop in the 10% -20% range. A lot of people are on board here in the US midwest due to the fact that we have a lot of farmers who could prosper with this.

I guess I just find it hard to believe that if Chrysler was plopping in 3.3 L motors in 98, they made the 3.3 that much different for the same model?

yes there may be some federal subsidies but many midwest states have all but eliminated the road tax on it so people will try it...and it generally does cost about 50-60 cents less a gallon. right now its 1.84.9 where i live and unleaded is about 2.60.

[Stretch58]

Originally Posted by asicsrunner

I see your point. Maybe it's not worth it but i have heard of mileage drop in the 10% -20% range. A lot of people are on board here in the US midwest due to the fact that we have a lot of farmers who could prosper with this.

I guess I just find it hard to believe that if Chrysler was plopping in 3.3 L motors in 98, they made the 3.3 that much different for the same model?

yes there may be some federal subsidies but many midwest states have all but eliminated the road tax on it so people will try it...and it generally does cost about 50-60 cents less a gallon. right now its 1.84.9 where i live and unleaded is about 2.60.

There are differences in the numbers flying around in the decrease in mileage obtained if the various mixtures of Ethanol are used. It depends on the source. Anti-Ethanol groups tend to inflate the decrease, pro Ethanol come up with numbers more favorable. Here is a quote from a letter to the editor in a local paper Wednesday.
"The higher cost of operating a flexible fuel vehicle is significant. A 20 gallon purchase of regular lead-free gasoline at $2.20/gal would be $44. Due to the reduced energy in E-85, you would have to purchase 32 gallons of E85 to travel the same distance. The cost for the 32 gallons would need to be $1.375/gal to equal the $44."
It also mentions the Aug 05 issue of Popular Mechanics, (the letters to the editor section).
The Ethanol plants use a lot of energy to make the Ethanol. One suggestion is for the Ethanol plants to be required to burn Ethanol instead of Natural Gas in their process. I like the idea of using homegrown energy. But there are other things to be considered.

[neon_rt]

When we went to LA last year, I filled the tank with E85.
It took 13 gallons to fill (20 gallon tank), my mileage went from 17 to 12 (city driving). I only put E85 in once because it would become a hassle to fill more often.
I saw a news article a few days ago from a International energy conference that mentioned that some countries that were contemplating use of E85 have decided against it. It takes more BTU's to process the fuel than the fuel produces. You couldn't run a Ethanol refinery on Ethanol because it would produce less fuel than is used.

[RodeoKen]

neon_rt opines:

<<<<<<<<CLIP>>>>>>>>>

The Ethanol plants use a lot of energy to make the Ethanol. One suggestion is for the Ethanol plants to be required to burn Ethanol instead of Natural Gas in their process. I like the idea of using homegrown energy. But there are other things to be considered.[/quote]

<<<<<<<<<<<<CLIP>>>>>>>>>

I saw a news article a few days ago from a International energy conference that mentioned that some countries that were contemplating use of E85 have decided against it. It takes more BTU's to process the fuel than the fuel produces. You couldn't run a Ethanol refinery on Ethanol because it would produce less fuel than is used.[/

neon_rt ...what you say isn't exactly accurate...

I too like the idea of home grown fuels and this isn't necessarily a forum on the science of ethanol production but it is good to be accurate. So maybe an update is good for us all.

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update [PDF] By Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield and Michael Wang. US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Oregon Department of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 814, July 2002.

In this study published by the USDA in 2002, researchers conclude that the energy balance for corn-ethanol is positive when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities and farmers achieve average corn yields. The report includes a review of past energy balance studies and shows that the energy requirements for producing a gallon of ethanol have fallen over time. One of the primary factors for this increase in energy efficiency is the increase in corn yields in the United States.

The study estimates that for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Ethanol production utilizes domestic energy feedstock, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Thus, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil.

Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.

I hope this is quality information for us all. I believe that independence from foreign oil is good for the U.S., our economy and jobs.

If we had E85 here in Oregon I'd seek it out. Right now I'm thinking of converting to BioDiesel by dropping an Isuzu Diesel into my 94 Rodeo. The 3.3 Voyager we have won't accept E85, but I'm still writing letters to Senator Ron Wyden to increase the production of ethanol from all biomass resources, not just corn.

[neon_rt]

I would suppose that anytime I would relay a news article without researching the subject myself it would lead to inaccuracies. It's been my experience that Media is biased and usually only has about half of their facts straight.
Interesting point though. The article you quoted mentioned that the production was positive when fertilizer was also produced from modern plants. What about third world countries that don't have modern plants and don't utilize the fertilizer? Negative results? Maybe so, that would go along with the article I saw. Biodiesel seems to be a better idea.
Besides what are we going to do with all of that stinking fertilizer?

[RodeoKen]

Hi Neon...

Trying to stay focused on North America and the U. S. economy I short sightedly left out all of those third world nations...opps...

As for where we use all that stinking fertilizer...California pours it on by the ton...so I guess we grow "green biomass" with it. ;-)

[rockiey57]

Hello All;
I oopsed real bad I think! I put e-85 in my 1979 pace arrow Motor home and now I don't know what to do, please help.
It back fires and will not stay running longer than a couple of mins. and when I put the MH in gear it dies very quickly.
Can someone please tell me what I might do.
Thanks C