400hp on Platinum only with 91 octane gas?

[Mike Wolfe]

Here are the specs for the current GM 5.3L Flex Fuel Engine
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 355 / 250 @ 5600 (gas – SAE certified)
380 / 283 @ 5600 (E85 – SAE certified)
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 383 / 519 @ 4100 (gas – SAE certified) 416 / 564 @ 4100 (E85 – SAE certified)

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l83/#ixzz5BiRk9Jio
Percentage improvements are similar for all flex fuel engines
Wish the regulators would push for 95 octane fuel or the mfg's would make all vehicles E85 compatible

 

[Mike Wolfe]

FYI
E85 is a net ZERO carbon emitter
While some carbon is emitted when burning E85, the plants grown to produce it remove an equivalent amount of carbon from the air as well.
So theoretically we could have a zero carbon 108 octane fuel
Therefor we could have much higher power density engines
No it does not increase food prices
Yes the mash that is left makes a nutritious livestock food
Some ethanol producers use the entire corn plant instead of just the kernels
Most vehicles on the road today can consume 15% ethanol blends with no driveability issues.
However our politicians get lobbied hard by the fossil fuels industry to prevent or minimize the use of ethanol for fuel
Doesn't make sense at all

 

[3rd Expyowner123]

I test drove a Limited and the Ford Dealer's personal car, Platinum Expedition model. I could not notice any power difference between the two trucks in limited test driving conditions (both standard length models), however the Limited's throttle response was a little smoother. I suspect the Dealer's personal vehicle was perhaps using regular fuel and not premium. Having one these big truck and hauling kids around town six days a week, I wanted to avoid the extra cost of premium. I ordered a loaded Limited model.

 

[NyackRob79]

Ok, can confirm. Filled her up with 93, definitely noticed a punchier acceleration merging onto the highway. Same load, similar ambient temperature.

 

[jeff kushner]

Mike, when you are touting the E85, lets not forget that while "octane" is inherently much higher in ethanol, there is still the matter of Energy Density of which E85, in addition to the horrors of corrosion due to the hygroscopic properties of ethanol, it also only contains approx 72% of the total energy.


E85 is not a zero emitter, not even close considering the carbon utilization just caused by the MILLIONS of SUBSIDIZED DOLLARS. How were those dollars produced? By magic? This was the same incomplete argument I've heard for years. We all heard how electric cars were so magically efficient, well, until WE CONSIDER ALL THE FACTORS, costs of disposing of poisons etc.....

jeff

 

[Mike Wolfe]

Hi all
Typical experience has shown that flex fuel vehicles using E85 do produce more power
& also get about 80% of the fuel mileage they do on premium gasoline
But give me an engine designed specifically to run on 108 octane fuel & we can create a much higher power density engine with much higher combustion pressures. That increase in efficiency will basically negate any difference in the fuels density
For instance a typical engine could have the compression ratio increased from 11-1 on premium gasoline to 15-1 on E85. Therefore a 2.5L turbocharged engine could produce the same amount of torque on E85 as a turbocharged 3.5L could produce on Premium gasoline
My comments regarding carbon emissions with E85 are correct. The amount of carbon released when burning E85 is negated by the growth of plants who consume carbon & remove it from the air. That is a scientific fact not speculation.
There is a lot of information supporting what I have stated here
Here is a link to one of them
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf

 

[st381183]

Yeah, .gov sites are the bastion of honest unbiased information for us mere plebeians. The ethanol industry that gets massive tax breaks would never, never ever falsify data or enhance findings to improve the public perception of E85.

 

[jeff kushner]

It's not a falsification ST, but more of "intentional omission" when statistics are carefully chosen because they only show what we want them to show.

What Mike states is factually true ONLY if the processing, transportation and yes, all those subsidized dollars and the pollution they caused while being generated are not part of the equation......but yes, the photosynthesis does make up for the CO produced but it's only HALF the story, isn't it?

Many attribute a human cost as well since Corn stocks on the world market are now going to fuel, not food.

No, I'm not a fan but that's just my opinion based on my perceptions....

jeff

 

[Mike Wolfe]

Hi All
All bio fuels & Petroleum fuels receive subsidies
There is always a debate about who receives the most
I believe they are similar
However I will always prefer the highest octane option & so would most engine design engineers
Here are a couple links to some data
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Ethanol-Subsidies-and-RFS-QA.pdf:argue:

https://ethanol.org/Oil subsidies 2018 fly-in.pdf

 

[jeff kushner]

Not that I question YOUR motives Mike because I do respect your talent.....but I have little credence to hand to the views of Subsidies, by the ETHANOL industry. No different than reading a wildlife report produced by the OIL industry. I am a critical thinker who takes those little details into consideration.

jeff

 

[Mike Wolfe]

Hi All
Not trying to hide the fact ethanol industry receives subsidies but so does the petroleum industry. For me it is very hard to determine which industry benefits the most from the subsidies but it is a fact that they both do & we pay for it. Would be nice if we could find proof of exactly who gets what. I know that if the petroleum industry drills a dry hole for example that is a 100% tax write off for them. Wish it was possible to find truly factual data that offered complete comparisons of both. I have always felt that the petroleum industry spends millions lobbying in support of it's own interests but I have no definitive proof of that. Just would love to have affordable 100 plus octane fuel available. We could make some serious high power density engines then.

 

[st381183]

My contention is that if E85 gives better power, performance, and efficiency then E85 would be the only fuel available. Manufacturers know how to sell cars and E85 is mostly available throughout the US at most stations. E85 May have benefits but it isn’t outdoing petrol quite yet.

 

[Artie]

My contention is that if E85 gives better power, performance, and efficiency then E85 would be the only fuel available. Manufacturers know how to sell cars and E85 is mostly available throughout the US at most stations. E85 May have benefits but it isn’t outdoing petrol quite yet.

E85 is fine unless you have a car 10 years old or older. My early model carbureted mustang will run on it but gumming up is an issue on the jets for sure.

 

[Mike Wolfe]

My contention is that if E85 gives better power, performance, and efficiency then E85 would be the only fuel available. Manufacturers know how to sell cars and E85 is mostly available throughout the US at most stations. E85 May have benefits but it isn’t outdoing petrol quite yet.

E85 is a carbon neutral fuel
E85 is 108 octane fuel
It latent heat of evaporation is much higher than gasoline
Therefore an engine could be designed to run exclusively on E85 with much higher power density
If E85 were readily available & the engine was designed for it instead of the flex fuel "FLEX FUEL COMPROMISE" a lot more power could be produced with a smaller displacement.
However we have a very wealthy petroleum industry that puts millions of dollars into lobbying to support their agenda

 

[jeff kushner]

How hygroscopic is it again?? That wouldn't ever cause any other issues would it at it makes it was through the transportation chain and into your tank? LOL There hasn't been an immediate & instant upsurge in fuel related repair issues since the inception of e85 has there?

I am not knocking anyone here.....I would suggest as always, begin to research for yourselves.....I admit my ****** bias comes from many, many years of building high performance two stroke engines....so for several reasons, ethanol in any form is "bad". Most of my engines can run on 93 but as Mike points out, thrive on 105 because it allows for a higher state of carb and timing tuning than would be advisable at lower octanes.


jeff