Prer pound of fuel, ethanol produces more emissionscas gasoline. Thr=e energy of combustion of ethanol is about 2/3rds of gasoline so there isn't any free lunch. You have to burn more ethanol to get where you're going. So more emissions.
And also the energy used to produce ethanol is greater than gasoline so more emissions are generated per mile.
If it weren't for fedral subsidies ethanol isn't cost effective either.
Not even mentioning the damage to fuel component gaskets.

 

I know what litesong and climatologist can do, support radical islamic fundamentalists......yeah cuz with western civilization destroyed we can reduce our carbon footprint living in caves and riding horses and camels.
Remember, these 'green' terrorists only emit carbon when they transport explosives to kill people, and rightfully so as these people need to be killed for the sake of carbon emission reduction.

Or better yet, jump on the 'Cap and Trade' bill which may pass tomorrow, written by Nancy Pulozzi & Al Gore who is the ultimate hypocrit as he has a carbon footprint about 35 times larger than the average guy.

Yeah, lets carbon tax the average family $4000 a year! Let's make it impossible for American companies that produce anything. we will leave that to China and India as they are sooooooooo effective at reducing polution!

Post up on a cloudy non windy day when you are eating rotten food out of your refridgerators....ohhhh but you cant post because the panels and windmills on your roof are not having a good day.

Yeah lets go crazy with ethanol, which is oh NOT so efficient Yield wise and OH NOT energy efficient to produce.
WHY?
Jack food prices up, more people starve to death= less carbon for teh win!
Sorry folks, it's coal, oil and nukes for now as the other technologies are not viable, economical or practical in the near future in mass at this point in time. And yes we need to continue developing alternate technologies and fuels.
OR
Ethanol, windmills and solar, tax carbon users to death=less people on the earth and 35% unemployment AND maybe Al and Nancy will fly out to your soup line in their private jets for a photo op!

Use your frickin brains people, we need to drill here in North America, build some Nuke plants, employ our people instead of sending nearly a trillion $$ a year to other countries some of which would like to see us wiped off the face of the earth.

 

I have a better idea. I recommended to our HR Rep that registered Democrats pay for Democrat Congress bills. He laughed and wished he could but political correctness would stop that.

 

Just one question..... Would it not be in our interest to build a few efficient refineries to make use of the domestic oil that we pump? I am 100% for ending our foreign dependency, but I think the plan is to allow the foreign fields to go dry and then start drilling when there are bigger profits to be had and less middle men.

 

In our best interests but not in our politicians like Al Gore and Obama's Democrats. Try dealing with EPA, tree huggers, and a raft of socialists and you'll sell why we don't have more refineries or nuclear plants to produce electricity.

 

Very true sir, but it is deeper than that even. Al Gore gets sometimes $200K to speak on global warming only now with evidence of global cooling the new term is 'Climate Change'.
Cap and Trade passed this afternoon (1300 pages that nobody in congress read, maybe the Senate will read it...uhhh maybe not). Everything a family uses that somehow involves energy will (if the bill makes it thru the Senate) cost more, food, home heating, gas....well basically everything....so it amounts to a tax on the average family of about $3000 a year.
In other words the single largest tax increase ever imposed on the American people.
But the real sick part is this is a massive transfer of wealth to the politically connected (politicians and lobbyists)
Al Gore is ready to sell carbon offset credits, so is GE who owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. GE will also get massive wind and solar energy contracts, is this a payback for extremely biased political news coverage?
Where Ethanol is a political ploy, this new carbon tax is Fascism and Treason against US citizens, political corruption at a new extreme

At least we own Fits, therefore the increase in gas prices wont affect us as much as most other people.
Greenhouse gas is actually 94% water vapor, so let's just cut to the chase and outlaw water :/

 

Even if crude stabilizes at $75 a barrel per the Saudi oil minister (60 miutes) the price of reducing our carbon footprint per the energy bill will increase gasoline costs considerably. SUV drivers may get relief from the gas guzzler bill but we won;'t. Your gas bill may double and thats significant, even to Fit owners.
PS greenhouse gases aren't 94% water. CO2, N2O5, and the like has no water attached to it. Water evaporated falls back as rain. greenhouse gases don't.

 

All I know is that I get better mileage out of a tank of regular gas than with corn in it . My wifes TSX runs much betterwith it.

 

I have noticed a 36% decrease in E85 consumption in one of my other cars. With the cheaper price of E85 gas, it is still cheaper for me to use standard gasoline. Plus if you consider the enviromental footprint of processing corn into gas, I don't think it is good for the enviroment either.

 

I don't know where to post this, so I'm posting here.

I just filled up with 8.5 gallons of 93 octane gasoline (my preferred grade), but I added 3 gallons of E85 to it, just to see what happens. This blend should be about E35 or so, and maybe 95-97 octane.

So far, I noticed the computer didn't retard the timing quite as much at very low RPM, so I can stay in 5th gear more. As for mileage, my Scangauge is saying I got 51 MPG or so on my first trip (lots of hypermiling), but I won't know how accurate that is until the needle goes below the "Full" pip.

I'd be interested in knowing if E85 can be used long-term with our cars without problems. I know it will keep the engine clean, but I don't know if the injectors are large enough, or if the fuel lines will hold up well.

What impressed me about the E85 pump was how clean it was, compared to the gasoline pump and especially the diesel pump. I also noticed it didn't smell as toxic.

 

^Spam alert

 

Why do you think the octane rating is 95-97? And since E85 has only 80 % of the energy of 93 octane fuel why would you believe you get better mpg? All tests i have participated in got much poorer mpg with E85. like 35%. And that cleanliness is the reason for virtually all manufacurers care are clearly ststed in owner manuals NOT to use E85 because of the corrosion of gaskets etc in fuel systems.

 

Do you have even t
/he remotest understanding of the environmental politics involved in building any refinery?

 

Did you read everything I wrote, or just enough to start flaming?

Since pure E85 is around 104 octane, and I filled my tank roughly 70% of the way with 93 octane gasoline, I estimate the rating of my E35 mixture to be about 95-97, probably closer to 95.

As for MPG, I reread my post, and I'm not sure what made you think I was claiming or even hoping for better mileage. If you're jumping on the 51 MPG figure, I should let you know I've been doing better than that lately on 93 octane gasoline (most likely E10), including a 12-mile, slightly downhill trip that I traveled at over 60 MPG twice within the last month. 51 is not unusual for me these days, although my average per tank is still around 43.

I don't recall reading in my Fit manual that I shouldn't use E85. Maybe there is such a warning. I do know that the Fit is not a certified Flex-Fuel Vehicle.

My reason for posting here is, I only hear flaming from people who say it will destroy your engine, and flaming from people who say it works in every car in history, not to mention the flaming from people who say ethanol is worse than terrorism, and the flaming from people who say ethanol is The Solution to Mankind's Problems.

As for me, I just want to know how well my car does with it, especially since it's cheaper than my preferred gasoline (60 cents per gallon cheaper where I filled up), and cleaner-burning. I thought someone here might be interested in hearing from someone who is actually trying it.

Side note: have you actually looked at the Fit's fuel lines and fuel pump? I'm wondering if they're all metal, or if there are some rubber/plastic pieces I might want to inspect.

 

Sorry, wasn't meant to flame you, just to correct some misgivings from an old petroleum engineer.
Octane has little to do with mpg; its the btu per lb that matters and virtually all premium gas now has only a few per cent more energy (btu per pound) than regular so more mpg isn't going to be much more for premium than regular. Maybe 3 mpg at most.
I think the secret is your indication that that high mpg is achieved on a slightly downhill run, which is not a good measure. Run the course both uphill and downhill and average the two mpg. Then compare.
Just to demonstrate the point, I and 3 friends once traveled US 64 for about 10 miles into Bat Cave, SC, and achieved over 100 mpg in a Sentra SER (6 spd auto) all in 6th. We have had the opportunity to test a number of Fits and find the EPA mpg pretty close to real world mpg. Thats good because most vehicles only get about 85% of tha average EPA mileage for city and highway mpg.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm aware of what octane rating is and what it is not. I also know that ethanol is less energy-dense than gasoline.

My 60-plus MPG runs were taken on a course which I take twice a week, round-trip, to and from my house. I average about 50 MPG (range 45-55) on the downhill trip, and I average 38 (range 36-40) on the uphill trip. I stated earlier that my tank average hovers right around 43 MPG.

By the way, my preference for 93 octane is simply that: a preference. I find it gives a little more torque in the 1000-2000 RPM band at high loads, no doubt owing to the larger spark advance permitted by its higher knock resistance. This allows me to hold higher gears where I would normally be seriously lugging the engine.

This characteristic of 93 octane gasoline also seems to be shared with E85. My Scangauge is indicating double-digit spark advance all the way down to about 1150 RPM at 80% indicated load.

If there is no damage after several tanks of E35, I may use E50 or E85 and see how that does. It would be nice if I could get the benefits of super unleaded, at the price of E85.

 

Okay, results from my first tank of E35 are in.

I filled up with roughly 11.5 gallons, and I got 498 miles with a lot of highway driving. This was about 40 miles after the fuel light came on, so I estimate I could have gone another 10 miles or so. This comes out to about 45 MPG, which is fairly typical for me when I do more highway driving.

I filled up with about 6.5 gallons of 93 octane, and 4.4 gallons of E85, for a mixture of about E40. After about 20 miles on this tank, including a couple of full throttle redline runs, the engine seems to be burning it well. I think my next tank will use a mixture of E85 and 87 octane.

Also, I went to the Buford Honda dealership to check with a service tech, looking for someone who had used E85 in Honda cars. Indirectly, I found one. This tech had been tuning the heck out of his RSX (I mean the works--EPS swap, Kpro, injectors from the RDX, and I don't remember what else). From what he told me, it looks like the main thing to watch for is fuel delivery. He said that as the blend becomes more and more ethanol, there will be a point where the car will run rough either at idle or under high load, and that's where the trouble would come in.

He said there wouldn't be any corrosion problems, and the ignition should be fine, but the injectors are probably undersized, and the computer probably would run too rich if the injectors were upgraded. He recommended an engine management system.

So, it looks like I'll just gradually increase my ethanol content over the fill-ups to come, until the engine just starts to run weird at full throttle, and then back it off one step from there. I'm guessing it'll be somewhere around E60.

Ideas? Suggestions?

 

Well, that was quick!

About 60 miles into my E40 tank, I got a P0171 code (Fuel trim lean). It went away again, then came back, twice more during a 120 mile trip. Looks like I've already hit the limits of the stock injectors.

I'll reduce to E35, either now or at the end of this tank. Next tank will be E35, but mixed with 87 octane fuel instead of 93. Possibly the ethanol content of 87 differs from that of 93 around here.

My guess is that E40 would require something like 10-12% more fuel flow than E10, so that might be just barely touching the limits of the stock injectors under certain conditions.

Does anyone know which, if any, Honda OEM injectors will work with the L15A? And, supposing I were to upgrade, would there be any weirdness, like running rich, or would the ECU take care of that automatically?

 

thanks to everyone for keeping the info coming

 

Okay, I finished the E40 tank, and filled up with an E35 mixture of 87 octane and E85. I'm estimating the octane rating of this to be around 93. It seems to run like it did with 93 octane fuel, but I did get the P0171 code once, possibly because there was more ethanol in the 87 than in the 93 fuel. So far, mileage doesn't seem much different.