Ethanol in Grand Cherokee

Uh Bill.. .052c = 5.2 cents.

J.

Bill doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Jim Smith

You could check your owners manual. Mine states 'not' to use it, but my Jeeps are old.

One test I use for different fuels is the simple gas mileage and power test.

If I put ethanol mix at any octane in my 86 CJ7 with my manually tuned engine, I drop 100 miles distance per tank of gas. So I go from an easy

I also lose all top end power. The engine starts to bog big time under load over 65 mph and it won't idle for s*it.

That 'sure' isn't worth the price difference in my case.

Mike

Chris, I use it because of the higher octane rating in a GC 2001 V8. But it is not cheaper up here in ND. It costs the same as regular. According the GC owner's manual, its ok to use a 10% blend. I am not sure if the mileage is any better over regular.

Larry Greenwood

God Bless America's Trees, Larry O|||||||O

Chris,

The E85 mix is 85% ethanol and will work only in some selected vehicles. As your owner's manual will tell you that you should not exceed a 10% blend of ethanol in your GC.

You can visit the following link to get a list of vehicles that can run on E85

Fuel system corrosion and other costly maintenance issues aside, you might want to check your fuel mileage on that E85. Many web sites report that there's a 10% to 30% loss of mileage on E85 over regular 10% ethanol. The loss of mileage is because a gallon of ethanol contains only 2/3s the energy of a gallon of gasoline.

On the back of my envelope I see that if you were getting 20MPG on gasoline but only 15MPG on E85 (a 25% reduction) it is costing you 12

Chris Lamb wrote:

Or that it is pure government pork. It takes the energy of 2/3s of a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of pump-ready ethanol. A gallon of ethanol holds 2/3s the energy of gasoline, so BTU-wise it is a wash. I'm all for workable alternative energy sources, but in this case we might just as well burn gasoline and pay farmers not to plant surplus corn.

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:

Glad I asked first. Seemed too good to be true. One of the fellow HAM radio operators in this area (Oshkosh) is the manager of the plant near here. He says they produce 55000 gallons a day and they are considered a small plant. Wonder who is using all this stuff.

Happened to go to the local Home Show yesterday and was surprised how many woodburners now can be set up to burn corn. But there is no gas in corn like there is in wood, so you only burn cellulose and it is much cooler.

I just read someplace that 30% of some government budget is spent on farm subsidies. What a waste. I think they should pull every subsidy: corn, tobacco, wheat, whatever. Either make it as a farmer or go find another job.

Off soapbox

Tate

Would be a good use for all the military bases that are slated to close...put up nuclear power plants. GWB mentioned that a while back, but I haven't heard much about it since. Yes, Bill, I agree with something W said. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And we should assign the management of the plants to the Navy, since they have so much experience with nuclear power.

We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...

If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased profits then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record that they do.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

Then the project should be federalized. (flame suit on)