I believe the easiest way to look at a cost problem, such as this, is to compute the cost per mile.
E85
( $2.90 ) * ( 1 gal) = $ .227 or 22.7 cents per mile driven
( 1 gal) ( 12.75 miles)mile
Premium
( $3.40 ) * ( 1 gal) = $ .226or 22.6 cents per mile driven
( 1 gal )( 15.00 miles)mile

I would argue that any cost benefit would be a wash...every 10 miles would cost you a penny, every 100 miles 10 cents, and every 1000 miles would cost you1 dollar.

Basedonly on the gov. figures of the 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x4 Flex Fuel (E85) 4.7 V8...it appears to be closer to an average 36% reduction in fuel economy with E85 compared with Gas...

 

It is not an issue of cost, it is a pure and simple reality that you can run E85 in a vehicle that is not designed to burn it, the damage would blow whatever perseeved savings all to hell.

 

In the boating industry, even 10% ethanol has been a big problem. In motor yachts often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars plus, the fuel tanks are frequently fabricated from fiberglass. The ethanol dissolves the resin, which gets into the fuel system and literally destroys the engines. Because ethanol can phase separate so easily and is very hydroscopic, in vehicles that don't get used daily, you can expect to see gas tanks rusting from inside out. You can bet there will be other unintennded consequences.

 

Run issues and compatability issues are a mute point here. My question was a cost comparison nothing more.
MariettaMini broke it down the way that I was looking for. Thank you.

Alcohol absorbs moisture, water and the internal combustion engine do not make good bedfellows. Those of us who live in climates where there are big temp swings in a twenty four hour period need to consider this when we select our fuel source. Even if you have a FlexFuel vehicle. Condinsation is prevalent here in MI.
That being said, I still get a kick out of pulling up to the E-85 pump with my 18 year old Camry and filling up next to the guy who just spent $30K on a new Chevy just so that he could save money at the pump.
And boy do they get mad when I pull the yellow nozzle out of the Toyota and drive away.
And I have been using nothing but E-85 in the Camry since April, no ill effects. But now that it is cold out I had to go back to gas because E-85 has less power than gas and the car puts up a fight until it is warm.
Been back on gas since late Oct. and she is still running just fine. And yes I use premium in that as well as my Rover.

 

Spike555...I'm glad that I could help you out. I teach math and I know it's not everyone's strong suit, plus this give me an example of how to use math in real life. I actually used that formula to show my wife that, even though I only buy Shell V-Power for my Mini, it still costs less to drive per milethan her Jeep GC Overland. My response to your post has nothing to do with running E85 in your vehicle...rather simply a numbers question. I think you got the idea, but just because I answered your hypothetical question does not mean that I agree with running E85 in a vehicle not designed for. I'm glad that I couldexplain it in an easy to understand way...I guess I'm in the right field andI'm glad that I could help.

 

Call me crazy, but I would see that as an ill effect.....

 

I also do not advocate using E-85 in a car not designed for it. But when you have a car that you are trying to destroy you can experiment. And this car WILL NOT DIE. I cannot kill it. I cant replace it until total meltdown. I bought it for $500 two years ago and I am the second owner.
290,000 miles, leaking headgasket and a bad rack and pinion.
But it still runs like a top, A/C works, cruise control, power windows, power locks, rear defroster AND 35 MPG.

 

For about $750 you can add the kit you need to run E85 in the Rover V8. It's not financially worthwhile unless you're travelling somewhere like South America (Bresil) that E85 is plentiful.

 

Look, E85 is not a long-term solution toreducing oil consumption. You're not going to save any money, or hardly contribute to a greener planet by buying E85 despite what the glossy ads portray. In fact, just the opposite. It's just going to prolong the idea that one can drive large vehicles w/ohigh energy costs. The benefits and costs of E85 has been hashed out in some of the better auto magazines, and Popular Mechanics gave lengthy coverage on it a year or two ago. Auto companies promote it because it basically lets them exploit a loophole in the CAFE rules allowing them to keepa couple thousand dollars per pick-up.It also makes them appear "green" and gives people driving these vehicles a warm fuzzy feeling inside, even though, I bet end up using regular fuel in the end. It was (is) a brilliant strategy bourne outduringa year in which GMhad burnedthrough some $12B in cash and theirprimary profits were coming from trucks and SUV's ...and then fuel prices spiked. The other domestics were not faring any better.

The science and econonics behind E85 are well understood and there isn't a great savings in fuel/cost using E85. Besides, it doesn't even take into account the farm subsidies and gov't tax benefits and supportalong the whole supply chain to produce E85. Also, now that there is greater demand, corn prices have increased and other crops (like Soya beans, Wheat, Oats) are projected to be grown in lower quantities which is expected to push their prices higher as well (meaning you will pay more for your wheaties, etc). So, the money is being spread around and ultimately, the costs of E85 would be quite a bit higher than gasoline if all this was taken into effect.

The carbon footprint is also huge. I grew up on a farm and I can tell you from first-hand experience that to grow corn and sell it, there are a lot of energy intensive steps.In the spring the field has to beplowed or tilled,then ya have to go into town andbuy the seedcorn (there is a whole bunch of steps that the seed corn company goes through to procuce the seeds, but we won't go into those). Thenthe corngets planted using a tractor and corn planter. This consumes quite a bit of fuel too because most corn planters aren't as wide as the massives ones shown on the commercials. Also usually a second tractor is used to transport fertilizer or additional seed corn during this process. Anyway, aftera couple weeksya sprayweeds (guess what - herbacides that need to be produced at a factory somewhere, trucked to the site ..and affect drinking water), then fertalizer (more chemicals and trucking).Comelate summer the corn will be picked. This process involves using a combine whichare horible on fuel, and one or two support tractors to haulthegrain. Then it needs to be hauled to a storage site where it is tranported up into grain storage bins or silos (electricity), and at some pointdried, which uses a lot of LP and electricity. When it gets sold to be used for fuel (exchange), it has to be moved out of the storage facility (more electricity), hauled, usually by semi to the rail station, and loaded onto a rail car. From there it gets transported to the processing plant (using diesel trains), unloaded, and processed (energy intensive process). Once distilled out, it gets transported again (by train/semi) to a large regional holding tank, usually in or near your city, and thenpumped onto a semi and transported and pumped into your gas station's tank. These are the things that take place to make E85. Every step is very energy intensive. This doesn't even take into consideration transporting workers to the jobs and producing the machinery for transporting and E85 production. W/o subsidies, it would be enourmously expensive. The carbon footprint is huge! E85 is a bad deal. It is only a great deal for the energy companies that work the government to reveiveenourmous grants and tax breaks (that we pay for) to build distilling plants and struggling auto companies that need a way to change their image, make people feel warm and fuzzy about driving gasguzzlers, and ultimatelyfind money to stay afloat. Hey, I'm a big fan of GM and Ford, and Toyota sells just as many gas guzzlers, but we can't kid ourselves into thinking there's a shortcut to driving large comfortable vehicles and using cheap energy.We're all paying for the costs of producing E85 wheather weactually use it or not, and the cost is a LOT higher than $2.90/gal ...plus you get 24% less economy even in E85 vehicles than gasoline, so ya use more of it. Personally, I think it's a lousy idea. I'd rather see the money go into"real" hydrogenor other technologies research, or even health care.

 

Mark G

You are so right,its a Bad Idea.

We need to keep the food on the table not in the gas tank!