Lounge For casual talk about things unrelated to General Motors. In other words, off-topic stuff. And anything else that does not fit Section Description.

OUCH, gas prices.

Thread Tools
 
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 12:29 PM
  #81  
Danthurs's Avatar
Thread Starter
Retired Senior Admin

Expert Gearhead
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 29,661
Likes: 43
From: Sheboygan Wisconsin
Danthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to all
Default

Will have to see if there are any other studies that have been done. I hate to base everything on one study. If your trying to make things look better then it is, it'* far to easy to fudge the numbers.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 12:31 PM
  #82  
RobertISaar's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Camden, MI
RobertISaar is on a distinguished road
Default

indeed... i believe those numbers were taken from the EPA ratings though.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 12:46 PM
  #83  
RobertISaar's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Camden, MI
RobertISaar is on a distinguished road
Default

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

good stuff!

a 2008 impala with the gasoline only 3.5 (LZ4) gets 18/29 ratings.
a 2008 impala with the gas/E85 3.5 (LZE) gets 18/29 on gas and 14/21 on E85.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:07 PM
  #84  
Danthurs's Avatar
Thread Starter
Retired Senior Admin

Expert Gearhead
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 29,661
Likes: 43
From: Sheboygan Wisconsin
Danthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to all
Default

Found this on Wiki

As recently as 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency stated on its website that several of the most current American FFVs were still losing 25-30% fuel efficiency when running on E85.

To achieve any short-term operational fuel cost savings, the price of E85 should therefore be 30% or more below the price of gasoline to equalize short term fuel costs for most older pre-2003 FFVs for both winter and summer blends of E85. Life-cycle costs over the life of the FFV engine are theoretically lower for E85, as ethanol is a cooler and cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. Provided that one takes a longterm life-cycle operating cost view, a continuous price discount of only 20% to 25% below the cost of gasoline is probably about the break-even point in terms of vehicle life-cycle operating costs for operating most FFVs on E85 exclusively
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:09 PM
  #85  
silversurfer's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 596
Likes: 2
From: Neligh, Nebraska
silversurfer is on a distinguished road
Default

Just filled the Bonneville today and premium is up to $3.58 now...ouch....and right before spring break....
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:14 PM
  #86  
RobertISaar's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Camden, MI
RobertISaar is on a distinguished road
Default

well, duh, the price difference has to be greater than the MPG lost for it to be cost effective.

simple math there.

using it in place of an equivalent octane gasoline fuel it can't be beat for the price. what'* 100-105 octane gasoline going for these days?
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:15 PM
  #87  
Danthurs's Avatar
Thread Starter
Retired Senior Admin

Expert Gearhead
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 29,661
Likes: 43
From: Sheboygan Wisconsin
Danthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to all
Default

I know when I mix race gas it'* about $6.50 a gallon, and that was a little better then at the pump.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:24 PM
  #88  
RobertISaar's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Camden, MI
RobertISaar is on a distinguished road
Default

so it'* safe to assume that at current prices/trends:

E85 makes no financial sense to use in a vehicle that doesn't require its rather high octane rating.

but

should you need higher octane fuel than 87, you MAY want to do the math to see if you will benefit from the increased octane at a much lower price than a gasoline equivalent at the expense of MPG.



all of this assuming your fueling system can handle E85 to begin with.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:28 PM
  #89  
Danthurs's Avatar
Thread Starter
Retired Senior Admin

Expert Gearhead
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 29,661
Likes: 43
From: Sheboygan Wisconsin
Danthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to allDanthurs is a name known to all
Default

It also assumes the prices of gas, and E85 does not close the gap, or even reverse. I looked in to converting my Bonneville over to E85 for the higher rating. But it wasn't cost effective, as well as Sheboygan county has only 3 stations that sell it. So going way out of my way to get it was also figured in. In the end, I was not able to recoup the investment, so the idea was scrapped.
Reply
Old Feb 26, 2011 | 01:32 PM
  #90  
RobertISaar's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Camden, MI
RobertISaar is on a distinguished road
Default

"that at current prices/trends"

that'* why i included this little snippet... we live in very volatile times for fuel prices, so who knows, tomorrow E85 MAY be the same price as 87 octane gasoline.... or it could plummet(right ).

but for the time being, a blanket statement of E85 being a good or bad idea cannot be stated with 100% accuracy, since we will all have different cost/benefit ratios...
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM.