I was learning about the E85 fuel technology and it is very interesting and promising. I wonder when it will become a part of the E. I expect it won't be long since a few versions of the C are equipped.

http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php

 

One would assume that if the 2003-2005 C320 is E85 compiant, the E320 should be as well - same 3.2L engine. Thoughts?

 

This correspondence should answer your question about MBUSA model expansion.

2/16/05
rwhite@e85fuel.com

Dear ---:

We are unaware of any plans for Mercedes to expand their models at this time.

I just returned from three days in AZ, and the future is bright. It is technically illegal to dispense E85 in Maricopa County. The National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition is currently working with the Department of Weights and Measures, legislators and the Clean Cities Coalition, to overcome some certification issues that would allow the establishment of E85 fueling sites in Phoenix.

There is much pent up demand for the use of E85 in Phoenix from motorists like your self to federal and state fleets. I would anticipate that we’ll overcome of the equipment certification barriers soon and have E85 sites in operation. I would recommend contacting your elected officials to express your interest in E85!

Regards,

Robert White
Project Director
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
3118 Emerald Lane, Suite 100
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573-635-8445, ext. 5
Fax: 573 635-5466
www.e85fuel.com

 

That is an interesting point. I hope so! This technology is 105 octane which would really boost performance. I wonder how much it will cost per gallon.

 

Sorry, high octane does not boost performance unless your knock sensor, etc. will advance ignition beyond what it will do for normal premium.

As far as "boost performance" goes, you're aware that alcohol contains fewer btu power than does gasoline for same measurement unit? This means it produces less power and your fuel economy declines.

No, the only thing good about ethanol is that it puts $$ in the pockets of Archer Daniels Midland and some other farmers.

 

That's odd since they are marketing as better performacne:
"E85 has a 105 octane rating and provides a boost in engine horsepower. It burns cooler than gasoline and keeps your engine clean."

"...We trust that you’ll find the better performance, lower price and economic, environmental and national security benefits will outweigh a slight fuel economy loss your FFV will experience when using E85."
http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85benefits.asp

 

You know what? Even if E85 just provides the same performance, and sells for the same price or even a few pennies more a gallon, and offers no other benefits, I personally would rather keep 85% of the money spent on each gallon of gasoline sold in this country right here, in the USA and out of the hands of people that despise us for working hard in our own chosen professions, living well because of that hard work, and worshiping whoever we want... or not even worshiping at all.

Yeah, there will be some new millionaires made, but they won't hate us, let alone try to kill us.

 

WOW... I didn't realise you guys disliked the Canadians that much!

 

L.O.L......

 

This is exactly what I am thinking. I hate bowing down to the middle east. I hope this technology takes off fast because I am getting anxious.

 

Higher octane ONLY provides higher performance IF the engine is modified to utilize it.

I sincerely doubt the knock sensor/ignition advance system is designed to beneficially utilize higher-than-design-specification octane fuels.

NOTHING about alcohol fuel is a performance enhancer. Laws of physics don't move over for hype or wishful thinking, and fuels containing fewer btu will not produce more power and will ALWAYS produce more fuel consumption to do the same work.

In addition, what do you think "burning cleaner" means? It's a nebulous term. Note, of course, your engine is warranted to remain within mandated emissions standards for 80K miles or some similar figure. That's clean, isn't it?

Sorry, there's no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy, either.

 

Not a fan of E85 having used modified fuel in the NE during the winters (basically they add an alcohol derivative to reduce emmissions when the cars want to run richer) and seeing the hit to gas mileage.

Keep in mind that normal aspirated engines can see more "power" from E85, however your gas mileage will drop 15-30%. The E85 Benz numbers I think were in the mid 20% decrease in gas mileage. E85 sees better figures in forced induction engines.

Also ethanol is extremely corrosive (at least compared to gasoline in contact with rubber/gaskets) even at 15%. Even with stainless fuel lines there is often little o-rings and intake seals that can be eaten away faster than a straight gas enigne. Not a serious deal, but to me it is still another maintenance point.

Final point, do the math on what you save by reducing 15% gasoline from your fuel but decrease gas mileage by 20%.

I'm waiting for biodiesel.

 

Here I was, getting all excited about the successor to the E55.

 

Bear in mind that only cars that have been built to run on E85 should use this fuel... Many have already been built. The manufacturers have already removed Ethanol sensitive materials from those cars, so "corrosiveness" will not be a problem. Some may be too young to remember, but when "lead" was removed from our gas, all the octane levels went down (Super HAD to be over 101, & regular Had to be over 97 [both old method numbers, but higher than todays Reg & Premium octanes anyway]) We overcame those obsacles & will here too. We have got to get away from Mid East Oil, like it or not, and there will be some interim steps that will have to be taken.

Don't forget that people heat their homes in a good portion of the country with #2, so there is competition for the Diesel Fuel buyers there too.

Its interesting to note the reasons why people will not buy E85... "Why make some farmers rich, ..It will hurt my car... there's fewer MPG"... how about wait till you have a car that will burn it (which won't cost any more than a regular gasoline only car, see what Gasoline costs, & maybe try it? The marketplace will decide all by itself... but guys, We've got to move away from Arab Oil sooner rather than later. This method satisfies the tree huggers, and people who need fuel to heat and drive.

 

Agreed in a sense. But Persian Gulf oil was 11% of the total US consumption in 2004 (latest figures in a recent BBC article). The majority of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada (609million barrels and 782million barrels in 2004). Saudi Arabia was the largest middle eastern supplier at 570million.

Shrub wants to cut back on 75% of the Mid East oil by 2025. So, 75% of 11% or <10% of our total oil consumption and take 20yrs to do that.

 

Politics aside, Ethanol seems poised for possible strong growth. Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) the largest ethanol producer has seen its stock double. Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) markets ethanol and its stock tripled. Verasun Energy, Hawkeye Holdings, and Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings filed for IPOs with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March and will hit the market soon.

 

Posted on Thu, Jun. 01, 2006
Wheels
By Ed Wallace
Special to the Star-Telegram

Recently the Boat Owners Association of the United States issued a warning to owners of older, expensive boats, after numerous members reported ruined engines with “black gunk sludging their intake valves.” The culprit is E10 gasoline, the same thing we are now using in the Metroplex; it’s melting away parts of their fiberglass fuel tanks — and the resulting gunk is clogging their fuel filters and fuel lines and ultimately destroying some very expensive motors. That’s when it occurred to me: a whole lot of gas stations have fiberglass storage tanks.

Sure enough, the American Coalition for Ethanol’s Web site even carries a warning for gas station operators on the use of the E85 blend: “However, fiberglass storage tanks manufactured prior to 1992 MAY NOT be able to handle E85.” You see the obvious contradiction; boat owners using fuel containing just 10 percent ethanol are already reporting melted fiberglass storage tanks and ruined engines — but the American Coalition for Ethanol claims that problems with fiberglass tanks come only from using 85 percent ethanol blends.

That sent me to the Fiberglass Tank & Pipe Institute, which also spells out warnings on using or storing ethanol in older tanks, although their concern seems lukewarm at most; they suggest that with proper tank maintenance there might not be a problem at all. But then, on the FTPI Web page marked “Ethanol and USTs,” this bombshell pretty much explodes that optimism: “Ethyl alcohol, because of its affinity for water, is not blended into gasoline until it is loaded into the delivery tank truck.”

American Petroleum Institute member companies address the need to control the ethanol blend component in API RP 1626, which states, “In-truck blending is not recommended since complete blending may not occur. Thus, splash-blending ethanol is not recommended since the ethyl/gasoline components tend to stratify and remain stratified after delivery to the refueling facility. Thus, the pump may pick up a high concentration of stratified ethyl alcohol, damage the automobile engine and not be covered under warranty.”

Let’s see: Owners of older boats have already filled their fiberglass gas tanks with E10 gasoline and watched them go away. One ethanol lobbying group states that an 85 percent ethanol blend could melt fiberglass storage tanks. The Fiberglass Tank & Pipe Institute claims tanks built before 1992 “could” have a problem with ethanol blends, but then spins around and says that the way we are delivering ethanol to local stations does an inadequate job of blending ethanol. Therefore, high concentrations of “stratified” ethanol are stored in fiberglass gas tanks and pumped into your automobile’s fuel system. And, because the ethanol doesn’t fully blend, parts of the fiberglass storage tanks are holding concentrations of ethanol much higher than 10 percent — which everyone recognizes means trouble on older tanks.

It’s a ticking time bomb, just like MTBE: Sooner or later, because gasoline storage tanks either are older or are not properly maintained, the higher concentrations of stratified, or insufficiently mixed, ethanol could eat through their walls. Next thing you know, subsoil gasoline plumes will invade local neighborhoods … and the water supply. In case you didn’t know, benzene is not good for St. Augustine grass — or children. This is what Hillary wants more of? For that matter, this is what Congress mandated last year?

 

Perhaps you'd like the opinion of someone working at DOE:

http://mbca.cartama.net/showpost.php...2&postcount=11

 

Actually I posted this for those looking to make a buck or two with the IPOs. Is the investment ethical now knowing the long term effects? Bush approves...

 

So does Hillary, at least this week.