Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
There is certainly some knit-pick warranty risk.Just a little caution for statements like this, If your Ram Hemi 5.7 manual says you can only go up to 10% ethanol, you can have your warranty voided by your dealer for using E15 with 88 octane. Especially if it is related to degraded fuel system components from using higher alcohol percentage than allowed by the warranty. Regardless of whether it is designed to use it or not.
Warranty already expired? Do as you want.
That's impressive. My experience in other FFV's has been 8-15% fuel economy drag.I have the V6 that's rated for E85. If I run a tank for the computer to get used to it, it's the same as regular when running unloaded. I notice no difference in power or mileage. If I'm pulling a trailer it's very noticeable.
Understand where you are coming from, as you are a fan of the ethenol. But I am standing on the opposite corner of the intersection and quite a skeptic after seeing the shenanigans (and gross lies) of the past 50 years play out, 1st hand as a driver since the mid '60's. "Lowest cost to the driver" IS NOT the most important attribute of this fuel mix. Politics and greasing the wheels IS. That is all I can say, here on a public forum, about that that.Agree with your statement of caution about "fact" coming from the Cali folks!
There is more to the situation than simply BTU's per unit mass - I do not believe it is "that simple". I acknowledge that energy density is a piece of the fuel economy story but octane for higher compression engines and post-combustion, cooling in the cylinder and exhaust manifold are known phenomenons that will lead to improved ICE performance in future engine design.
Further, even if energy density with the only obvious factor, wouldn't cost per mile driven still be most important attribute?
I have no problem with market driven solutions. .Gov shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. I am not a fan of government subsidies in any event.Looks like gasoline threads are taking over where oil threads left off!
2016 5.7 Laramie. For the first 4 years of its life this truck made runs from UT to SD, 1k miles to my Mom’s front door from home then back. i am not a fan of alcohol fuels in vehicles for myriad reasons so avoid it when possible, so on my SD trips I always managed fillups (32gal) so I would only have to fill once in SD, where non-alcohol fuels can be hard to find. Mileage results were very consistent, running at 5mph over posted everywhere except the interstates. Pure gasoline always yielded better mileage—18.5-19.5 on gasoline, 16.5-17 on gasahol, hand calculated always. But as they say, YMMV.
Whomever posted that attitudes on gasahol don’t change is right, and the arguments don’t change much either. Alcohol fans decry oil subsidies, pure gas fans decry alcohol subsidies, and both sides ignore the environmental impacts of their fav fuel and the health risks and costs of polluted air (if you were breathing the air in Denver or LA back in the 70s you know what I mean). In the end, they will both succumb to a temporary transition to electrics and hybrids on their way to long-term transition to hydrogen-fueled vehicles. And finding gasoline for your vintage vehicles will be like trying to buy kerosene for a wick lamp…