Modern Camaro Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
The closest Kroger gas station to me is still a good 10+ miles away. :p

"Currently, Kroger has 40 locations offering E85 in the states of Texas, Ohio and Kentucky."
They're hiding from me, then. The e85 website only shows 2 places..2 small mom&pop places.

Just did a search..now they only show ONE in Kentucky..and that's in Covington. All the other places within 100 miles are in indiana and ohio.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I only see 1 Kroger one in Kentucky
Max Fuel Express #6
Corner of Ft. Campbell Blvd. and Walnut St.
Hopkinsville, KY

Kroger Fueling Station
4303 Winston Ave.
Latonia, KY (Covington/Kenton Co.)

There are tons of them in Texas:
http://e85.whipnet.net/locator/kroger.e85.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Why would the non ffv have more power. I thought the only difference was a sensor on the tank and larger injectors. I thought they had the same power on gasoline and 5-10% more hp on E85. The only thing I could think would be the calibration but I still have never heard that.

btw the 2008 Tahoe non ffv gets the exact same fuel millage as ffv version when they are both ran on gasoline. I would not think HP would be affected either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts
Why would the non ffv have more power. I thought the only difference was a sensor on the tank and larger injectors. I thought they had the same power on gasoline and 5-10% more hp on E85. The only thing I could think would be the calibration but I still have never heard that.

btw the 2008 Tahoe non ffv gets the exact same fuel millage as ffv version when they are both ran on gasoline. I would not think HP would be affected either.
I can't remember specifically. I think I saw the difference in a 5.3l V8 the FFV 5.3l was rated at 310hp and the non-ffv was 315hp. Not entirely sure, but I DO remember seeing some engines with minor differences.

EDIT: Unrelated note, I wish idiots who did the user MSN reviews would realize that 1's are BAD and 10's are good. This guy rates the 08 silverado all 1's but is like "IT IS THE BEST TRUCK EVER, I LOVE IT".
Surrounded by morons. :p



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
I can't find any info on the Silverado but the 2007 Tahoe that is a ffv has the exact HP rating as the non ffv Tahoe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Tahoe#2007

Year Displacement Engine Power Torque Notes

2007– 4.8 L Vortec 4800 V8 295 hp (220 kW) 305 ft·lbf (414 N·m) does not feature Active Fuel Management

2007– 5.3 L Vortec 5300 V8 320 hp (239 kW) 340 ft·lbf (461 N·m) standard on 2WD models

2007– 5.3 L Vortec 5300 V8 320 hp (239 kW) 340 ft·lbf (461 N·m) FlexFuel; standard on 4WD models


2007– 6.2 L Vortec 6200 V8 380 hp (283 kW) 417 ft·lbf (565 N·m) Yukon Denali only; does not feature Active Fuel Management


I did notice something on the genIII engines on the Silverado though:

2000–2003 5.3 L Vortec 5300 V8 280-285 hp (213 kW)
2004–2006 5.3 L Vortec 5300 V8 295 hp (220 kW)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,229 Posts
We have one place to buy E-85 in my town. The price is so high it wouldn't make much sense to purchase it though. They are charging almost 80-90 cents higher than the national average. about 10 cents cheaper than 87 unleaded

EDIT:
You would see at large drop in fuel effieciency. Edmunds did a test and got: :eek:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html

The Final Score — Fuel Economy and Cost
After refueling we put the fuel amounts and the prices paid into a spreadsheet and compiled a clear, side-by-side comparison for both fuel consumption and cost. Remember, these results apply only to this vehicle and to the prices in effect during our 667-mile test.

Gas Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back, we used 36.5 gallons of regular gasoline and achieved an average fuel economy of 18.3 mpg.

Gas Cost: We spent $124.66 for gasoline for the trip. The average pump price was $3.42 per gallon.

E85 Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back we used 50 gallons of E85 and achieved an average fuel economy of 13.5 mpg.

E85 Cost: We spent $154.29 on E85 for the trip. The average pump price was $3.09 per gallon

Gas/E85 difference:The fuel economy of our Tahoe on E85, under these conditions, was 26.5 percent worse than it was when running on gas.

A motorist, filling up and comparing the prices of regular gas and E85, might see the price advantage of E85 (in our case 33 cents or 9.7 percent less) as a bargain. However, since fuel economy is significantly reduced, the net effect is that a person choosing to run their flex-fuel vehicle on E85 on a trip like ours will spend 22.8 percent more to drive the same distance. For us, the E85 trip was about $30 more expensive — about 22.9 cents per mile on E85 versus 18.7 cents per mile with gasoline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,229 Posts
I'd like to see some more independent tests to see what to believe.

I'm sure the auto manufacturers will try to play down the difference because they don't want to scare off buyers.
 

·
Dark Side Moderator
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
We have one place to buy E-85 in my town. The price is so high it wouldn't make much sense to purchase it though. They are charging almost 80-90 cents higher than the national average. about 10 cents cheaper than 87 unleaded

EDIT:
You would see at large drop in fuel effieciency. Edmunds did a test and got: :eek:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html

The Final Score — Fuel Economy and Cost
After refueling we put the fuel amounts and the prices paid into a spreadsheet and compiled a clear, side-by-side comparison for both fuel consumption and cost. Remember, these results apply only to this vehicle and to the prices in effect during our 667-mile test.

Gas Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back, we used 36.5 gallons of regular gasoline and achieved an average fuel economy of 18.3 mpg.

Gas Cost: We spent $124.66 for gasoline for the trip. The average pump price was $3.42 per gallon.

E85 Result: From San Diego to Las Vegas and back we used 50 gallons of E85 and achieved an average fuel economy of 13.5 mpg.

E85 Cost: We spent $154.29 on E85 for the trip. The average pump price was $3.09 per gallon

Gas/E85 difference:The fuel economy of our Tahoe on E85, under these conditions, was 26.5 percent worse than it was when running on gas.

A motorist, filling up and comparing the prices of regular gas and E85, might see the price advantage of E85 (in our case 33 cents or 9.7 percent less) as a bargain. However, since fuel economy is significantly reduced, the net effect is that a person choosing to run their flex-fuel vehicle on E85 on a trip like ours will spend 22.8 percent more to drive the same distance. For us, the E85 trip was about $30 more expensive — about 22.9 cents per mile on E85 versus 18.7 cents per mile with gasoline.
I would be on it for the performance end of the deal, a tune for 110 octane. Plus the price is going to have to be lowered 26 percent, but that will only happen if its in demand. Once its a common fuel then I expect demand to raise the price, but its better than 93 octane and strongly reduces dependance of oil countries.
Also I use nothing less than 89 octane and get 91 or 93 when I can. I think the test was done on regular grade gas not premium. If it was done in premium I believe the price difference would have been so bad. Plus the gas with the same octane cost $6 dollars a gallon near home.
Also I think lesser grade than E85 can be had. If E90 (more expensive than E85) is used in the winter or colder climates to help with cold starts, then I believe a cheaper "E70" or something can be made (something with less octane, but burns in the average car). Its just a mixture.
 

·
Dark Side Moderator
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
I'd like to see some more independent tests to see what to believe.

I'm sure the auto manufacturers will try to play down the difference because they don't want to scare off buyers.
Im going to try E85 in the talon in Phoenix versus premium gas (91 or more). Im going to dyno the car with both with top tune. Its will be a real test. I think the E85 will be the hands down performer, but will match cost of gas. So I think there will be a gain and the only down sides are more frequent refuels and less station with E85. If walmart gas stations had it then everyone would have it.
 

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,420 Posts

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I am hoping for a more cosistant car being I am bracket racing because alcohol is supose to be less affected by weather.
btw E100 is 113 octane fuel.
I still don't want to go as far as methanol though.
 

·
Dark Side Moderator
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
I am hoping for a more cosistant car being I am bracket racing because alcohol is supose to be less affected by weather.
btw E100 is 113 octane fuel.
I still don't want to go as far as methanol though.
From the article, I change my idea. I thought the 15% other part was something else (I was :screwy:). I like to see E100 ran then. No gasoline. No dependance, but im sure there is a reason not to use it at 100% ethanol. I like to see a fuel at 75 cents a gallon. Maybe if delivered to the pumps, then 25 cent processing and delivery charge. So maybe, 1.00 a gallon at the pump. But im dreaming.

113 octane in every car.
 

·
Dark Side Moderator
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Are you sure it is a E85-capable vehicle?
As for that, its simple convertion. Larger injectors, re-tune, and prolly a plastic tank (not aluminum) and some other small things. Its not something that cant be done a home in the garage in a weekend; its more like if you have the E85 available to make it worth it.
 

·
Supporting Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
From the article, I change my idea. I thought the 15% other part was something else (I was :screwy:). I like to see E100 ran then. No gasoline. No dependance, but im sure there is a reason not to use it at 100% ethanol. I like to see a fuel at 75 cents a gallon. Maybe if delivered to the pumps, then 25 cent processing and delivery charge. So maybe, 1.00 a gallon at the pump. But im dreaming.

113 octane in every car.
I doubt they will evey use E100 here in the USA mainly because you can drink it. They do have E100 in Brazil. The only way to get E100 is to make it yourself or you may be able to purchase it from a race gas supplier. E100 is what the Indy cars use.
If its a ffv it should be able to detect E100 mixture as well and make the adjustments needed.
Cold start could be another thing but I have heard of E100 cars starting fine in the cold. You could always make a winter blend and a summer blend.

http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2006/autonews_252.html

Wow they are getting alot more energy out of sugarcane than we get from corn:
Wheat 1.2 (Energy Output)
Corn 1.3/1.8 (Energy Output / Energy Input)
Sugar Beet 1.9 (Energy Output)
Sugar Cane (under Brazilian production conditions) 8.3 (Energy Output)
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top