Engine outputs

[James86]

Wasn't sure where to put this ( I own a 3.0 FFV, so wasn't sure specifically where this ost should be), but since I've seen more than a few people ask about ethanol and such, and see arguing about HP rating between the engines, I decided to dig out my manual and see what Ford's official ratings were. I have a 1999 manual and my truck was made in July 1999.

So I flipped to the ratings and voila:

Which leads to a few answers to questions I've seen raised and I myself have wondered:

-Ethanol produces 9+ HP and 12+ lb-ft than regular 87 in a FFV

-The difference between a FFV on ethanol and a 4.0OHV on 87 is less substantial than running E85 vs. 87 regular in a 3.0

-The 4 cylinder produces its peak torque lower than the 3.0

Thought I'd throw it out there. All the motors have their pros and cons, but seeing the numbers and having driven nearly any possibility of motor in a ranger save for a turbo or a 2.8, I can't say I'm surprised by the figures versus my impressions when I drove them.

 

[Rearanger]

Which leads to a few answers to questions I've seen raised and I myself have wondered:

-Ethanol produces 9+ HP and 12+ lb-ft than regular 87 in a FFV

No, the FF engine on E85 produces that.

 

[James86]

Kinda makes me wonder what a 3.0 FFV on gas does...

 

[Rearanger]

I believe it pings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

 

[stmitch]

Well played rearanger. lol.
And James, thats very cool info! I've suspected for a long time that the flex motors had a little more gusto, but I no longer have the manual for my truck, so I couldn't verify it. Thanks!

 

[Sampson]

When I ran ethanol for the first time, there was a noticeable power difference. There is this hill I have to go up on my way home from school and it usually slows the truck down a good amount but with the ethanol I just give it some more gas and it keeps on truckin in OD. With 31's and 3.73's I need all the help I can get.

 

[James86]

The tricky part for me was figuring out where all the E85 stations in my area, or in common destinations for me, were. otherwise, I prefer ethanol myself. I've gone over the MPG every tank and keep an eye on prices (sometimes a .05-.10 diffrerence depending on the end of town) and its always within about a penny or two per mile. I just figure cost per mile, and even if it is a few cents cheaper, I consider it negligible because I like that extra bit of power.

 

[Rearanger]

I just figure cost per mile, and even if it is a few cents cheaper, I consider it negligible because I like that extra bit of power.

It's cheaper because of Federal corporate agricultural subsidies. Would you be willing to give those up seeing as the new Republican congress wants to reduce the deficit?

 

[James86]

It's cheaper because of Federal corporate agricultural subsidies. Would you be willing to give those up seeing as the new Republican congress wants to reduce the deficit?

Yes I would. I'm not against keeping my money in the US instead of buying car number 328 for some oil sheik...

 

[stmitch]

I agree. I've been keeping track of my mileage every fill up for the last 18 months or so. The cost per mile breakdown is very close for me as well, so I'll continue to use e-85 because my truck runs better, and it is made entirely from 100% GDP, which greatly reduces our dependence on foreign oil. I'd rather my $$ goes to American farmers than some greedy OPEC nation.
I hope to be mounting my whipple on the truck in the coming months, which requires 93 octane or higher. I'll be powering it with e-85 for several reasons. The cost difference between e-85 and premium is much greater than e-85 and regular gasoline, so my truck will run much better, and much stronger on the e-85 for much less money than it would on premium gas. It will also greatly reduce the likelihood of detonation, and therefore safeguard my engine from catastrophic failure.

 

[Sampson]

My truck use to ping under load, but ever since I ran the first tank of ethanol it has stopped. Even when I run 87 it doesn't ping. There are a bunch of places by where i go to school at that have e85, but at home there is only one and its a good 30 min drive. The 87 at home is usually the same price or a bit cheaper than the e85 30 min away in a different town. I usually just get it at school.

Pat

 

[kart45]

I haven't had the pleasure of running any e85 thru my 2000 yet, but I want to

Got me thinking though, I've got about 20 gallons of methanol left over from running the sprint car and go karts over the summer. Do you think I could blend in a gallon or two per every 10 gallons of 85-87 octane gas? I'd like to use it up, it can't sit for too long without sucking up moisture.

 

[Rearanger]

Yes I would. I'm not against keeping my money in the US instead of buying car number 328 for some oil sheik...

Some good stuff here:
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html

I'd rather my $$ goes to American farmers than some greedy OPEC nation.

Would ADM count as a farmer?

 

[stmitch]

Would ADM count as a farmer?

Pretty much. They pay their employees to grow crops, so either they're a farmer, or their employees are farmers, depending on how you look at it. Either way, most of my money is going to American workers instead of who knows where overseas. E-85's not a perfect fuel solution, but I find it's upsides very appealing.
I usually get my e-85 from Countrymark, which is a farmer owned Co-Op based in the Midwest. They get almost all of their supply from agricultural products in the Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois area.

 

[Hahnsb2]

While E85 contains fewer BTUs than gasoline (as evident by worse fuel mileage), it's octane is much higher, allowing timing to be increased and make more power. E85 is becoming a favorite for high performance turbo engine builders for this reason.