E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test

xplsv

The results in this article bear out the basic physics that a gallon of gasoline contains more energy than a gallon of E-85: nothing will ever change this fact. Additionally, in today's market, E-85 is only surviving based upon government subsidies. If allowed to come to a price point in a free market, E-85 would likely be several dollars per gallon higher than its current selling point. On the oil side, the US continues to increase production and may well be reaching record numbers in the coming years. Same for Canada. At a point in the future, E-85 may, indeed, become an economical alternative, but I would venture a guess that will not occur in this century. This, despite the fact, that it likely takes more energy to convert the corn to ethanol than what is effectively yielded to the car's engine.

csiglos

Personally I think this article was pointless and a waste of time and money...
Simple chemistry and physics tells you that ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline. Should I jump into the air to test out gravity and possibly write an article about it?
I mean you could have just Googled it or was it just an excuse to go to Las Vegas

gmx1

In 2009, I applied for, and was appointed by the Director of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to sit on the Low Carbon Fuels Advisory Committee, as Citizen Representative. Had I known the incredible, informative and eye-opening journey that would await me, I'd have volunteered for many more advisory committees before now ( and I've been asked to sit , again, by the DEQ). My job was to represent the Citizens of Oregon..all 4.1 million of us. WHAT I LEARNED: The Carbon Foot Print of fuel can be the most "inconvenient truth" out there. Out of respect for your time, I'm going to sum up as much as I can in as few words as possible:..." It's not WHAT you drive, that counts..but HOW you drive it !~" Ethanol is bad. It's not "carbon-friendly" and it causes too much disturbance of soils, which is an activity that also releases trapped gas and carbon , too. Ethanol causes damage in "legacy" fleet vehicles (read: farm equipment, logging equipment, commercial equipment and anything older than about 1979 year-build). Airplanes were very quickly made immune to ethanol laws right after a few near-miss/ forced landings caused by ethanol damage to carburaters. Countless engine fires have resulted from ammended diesel fuels and gasoline fuel lines..think of an engine fire in a luxury liner lately?...hmmm. ALTERNATIVE FUEL the is MOST LIKELY and is EASIEST to implement: Compressed Natural Gas: Our home gas supply is at ridiculously low pressure, so, we'll be using compressing pumps that will take 8 hours to push in and compress enough natural gas in order for a piston engine to run 200 miles. Perfect for the average consumer. Higher pressure delivery systems will be commercially available too. The advantages: infrastructure is present and waiting. We already have the gas line distribution system. Engines won't require significant modifications. Retrofitting vehicles will be entirely possible. Electric motors? Transmission lines are already taxed. Distribution trunks are maxed-out. Prior to very recently, there was no standardization of plug shape or size at recharging stations. That's recently changed. PRO-for electric motors? Short range heavy truck deliveries: especially for hilly cities. Instant, immediate torque of electric motors makes anyone who has ever pulled a heavy load, smile with appreciation. Idling? Nope..no fumes from diesel..and idling diesel engines are the topic that maked DEQ foam at the mouth. Citizens complain about the thick black smoke/fumes that arise from heavy tractor/trucks running around dense urban areas. There's laws that restrict dieseling idling. No problem with electric motors. NEW BREAKTHROUGH: Ethanol can now be made, EFFICIENTLY..<---key concept here..take note, and at 95+% effecient...from WOOD. From woody debris, from CELLULOSE, from grass clippings..from slash piles..from yard waste.... Thanks to science figuring out how the protozoans in the guts of termites and sow-bugs do it...we've figured out their enzyme process and have replicated it. It works. Ethanol is a fuel, but the engine / motor should be designed FOR IT. The process of making ethanol from food stock is not sustainable. Taking slash piles that would otherwise be burned in the spring, or any other abundant source of woody debris) and turning that into ethanol makes much more sense than competing with food sources. Hydrogen from water: my own experiments proved very impressive ( increased mpg by 30% !!) and this technology holds no patent for anybody..water is water..unless of course, Monsanto gets involved, and then it's a patented 'Dihydro oxide"..but, it's the safest way to store hydrogen..(water). I only needed 4 amperes of current to create 1.5 liters of HHO gas per minute..and with a little more tinkering, I could get morer production than that. There is promise in this direction; to use fugitive electric current and capture it, convert it into hydrogen and oxygen gasses, and then enhance the air that feeds the combustion cycle in our engines ( ambient air is mostly nitrogen..and that doesn't burn). FINAL ANALYSIS: Natural Gas Engines will be the most dominant vehicle fuel..followed by gasoline, electric , diesel and their various multi-fuel hybrids.

The Vehicle Fuel of the future will be MULTI-MODAL; no "single" fuel source will completely dominate.

The Very BEST means to increase fuel efficiency if YOU...Human behavior is the single most important factor in fuel efficiency..

SLOW DOWN, do the speed limit, don't jack-rabbit starts, coast instead of slam on the breaks, glide in neutral if it's not illegal in your state and increase your mpg AND save your tires/brakes.

I got over 110,000 miles on FACTORY brakes on a 1999 F150 work truck, because of the way I drive..and I only changed them then because I had the truck up on a rack..I could have gone another 10K miles.

Wise-up, America...and SLOW-DOWN: the money you save is YOURS.

gmx1

Regular or Premium? Which is cheaper? ( as opposed to "which is better..a forgone conclusion).. IF we were to buy gasoline to stack up and to horde like gold or precious metal, then by all means, "cheap regular from cheap-o stations..like ARCO" is the ticket!! BUT: we buy fuel to convert into miles driven.

CHALLENGE: calculate cost per mile of regular versus Premium...
You'll find that Regular is the most expensive fuel, and PREMIUM is the cheapest. You will get more miles per gallon from PREMIUM, and your engine will run better, you'll have more power, should you not be able to keep your foot out of it..and, you'll get MORE miles per gallon.

RESULTS: My own personal results with a 400M Ford V8, and then with a 4.2L Ford V6, and then with a Toyota 2.4L 22R I4, and on through to a Chevy 4.3L V6 and Ford 2.5 L I4 and even a Suzuki 1.8L I4, ALL show an average hovering around 10% better mpg on supreme opposed to regular.

When regular sells for $ 3.98/gallon ( 5/30/2013, Ashland, OR ) and Premium sells for $4.17 gallon. the difference is about 5 % in cost. The miles-delivered is 10%. I'm money ahead if I burn the better fuel.

FURTHER: in Oregon at least, a station doesn't have to sell ethanol mixed fuel in it's regular gasoline. WHY? Because tests , as proscribed by EPA regulations prove that the premium gasoline doesnt NEED it to meet benchmarks. Find a station that doesn't mix ethanol in it's premium fuel and you'll get even greater performance..but watch the costs... It's been noted that "white gas" is artificially higher than the other fuels by up to $0.75 per gallon...wait for the "fad" to catch on, and the price to drop.

SLOW DOWN: It's not WHAT you drive, but rather, HOW you drive it that counts.

bandsaw

With the same amount of emissions when using E85, plus the energy to manufacture, 25% less mileage and the farm subsidy, the E85 is a losing proposition. The farm subsidy is much larger than the subsidy to the oil companies. Check the site ewg.org and see how large the farm susidy program is and who is taking advantage of this entitlements.
The arguement that ajmayberry has is part of the propaganda that the liberals want to use.

kwmcbride

Maybe the 2007 models were less efficient. I had the same experience with a 2007 Impala. The 2011 Chrysler 200 and the 2011 Impala both give about 2 to 3 mpg less with E85 than with gas. I noticed the price difference today is $1.10/g. At these prices, E-85 is a steal.

kwmcbride

Try the test with the Chrysler 200 283 hp V6. I'm getting 21-26 mpg with e85 vs 23-28 mpg with e10. The differential in my area is $1.10 right now making e85 a steal.

occupant1

At least in the last few months in central Ohio, E85 fuel has been on average, 60 to 70 cents cheaper than regular 87 octane E10 gasoline. This is around the 30% mark and makes it a wash. Cleaner burning makes it worth it to run the stuff. Sadly, our Suburban is not the flex fuel model so I haven't been able to do any testing myself. I can get 17-18mpg in mixed driving on regular gasoline. I would expect to get 12-13mpg with the E85, and my cost would probably be the same overall. But without the official badging and equipment I don't plan to try.

trentny

To make E85 (or E100) the fuel of choice here in the US, flex cars need to be tuned to take advantage of ethanol's higher octane by way of increased compression. This would make ethanol energy output equal to or better than gas.

In Indiana, Indy Racing League Senior Technician Director Les McTaggert told Hoosier Ag Today that with modifications to compression, cars would achieve the same or better mileage on E100, saying that loss in mileage experienced by customers of E85 stems from the fact that "the engine is principally designed to run on hydro carbon fuels. You change certain dynamics of the engine to optimize it to run on an alcohol fuel and get better gas mileage."

texases

Can't make the cars with higher compression, they'd be incompatible with regular gas.

And it's a waste, anyway, ethanol is no benefit to anyone besides the farmers and ethanol makers.

PF_Flyer

texases said:

And it's a waste, anyway, ethanol is no benefit to anyone besides the farmers and ethanol makers.

I'll agree to this extent... ethanol, from my experience, doesn't save a drop of gasoline. 10% ethanol blend has dropped the mileage performance of my vehicles almost exactly 10% since it was introduced. Any time I'd find gas with no ethanol (and that pretty much doesn't happen any longer), my mileage would improve back to "normal".

Nobody has ever been able to explain to me how I'm cutting back on gasoline use since I have to buy 110% of the fuel I used to buy to go the same distance. I'm using just as much gas as I used to, plus the extra ethanol.

thecardoc3

texases said:

Can't make the cars with higher compression, they'd be incompatible with regular gas.

And it's a waste, anyway, ethanol is no benefit to anyone besides the farmers and ethanol makers.

With GDI and the variable valve timing systems in todays engines, not only are they able to run compression ratios over 13-1, they can turbocharge them on top of that and get them to run just fine on regular pump gas. Older engine designs would have suffered extreme detonation issues with that much compression but that is easily controlled with GDI.

thecardoc3

Threads like this one notoriously allow the topic to be distorted and the real reasons (benefits) for the fuel in this case to be overshadowed by a lot of nonsense. One of the biggest reasons to investigate alcohol for fuel has to do with CO2 emissions. When alcohol is used as a fuel the carbon content of the fuel is already active in the environment. When a gallon of gasoline or diesel is used as the fuel the carbon in it is being re-introduced into the environment after being isolated out of it for millennia.

The CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel are in the range of twenty pounds per gallon. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Quite often people who haven't done their homework but feel obliged to voice their opinion in forums like this ignore the simple fact that about 86% of the weight of a gallon of gas is the carbon.
http://topics.info.com/What-is-the-weight-per-gallon-of-common-fuels_2429
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/how_gasoline_becomes_co2.html

As referenced when you burn the gasoline, you add two oxygen molecules from the air to each carbon molecule in the fuel and so the weight of the CO2produced increases to some three and a half times what the carbon itself in the fuel originally weighed.

Then we have the fuel mileage claims and how far of a drop off occurred when someone went from straight gasoline to an E5 or E10 and many of the claims tried to state that their mileage dropped off more than the alcohol percentage. The claims when dissected essentially state that if a gallon of gas would get them twenty miles, then E10 got them about sixteen, a reduction of some twenty percent because of the 10% alcohol in the fuel. When this very discussion took place a couple years ago on a technicians web forum Jim Kemper was trying to explain the flaw in the logic that was being used but wasn't getting through to the Nay-Sayers until I added this perspective.

E10 is 90% percent gasoline and if your car gets twenty miles to the gallon, nine tenths of a gallon would get you eighteen miles. For the additional alcohol content to get you less than eighteen miles the alcohol would not only not have any energy released by burning it, it would have to also somehow magically make some of the energy from burning the gas disappear. But burning the alcohol does release energy that the car can be driven on, and it doesn't eradicate energy released by burning the 90% of the gasoline. Think of it this way. If you ran the gasoline portion first you would travel eighteen miles, then what would happen when you added the 10% of alcohol? Would you expect the car to move forward for some distance again, or magically transport back a couple of miles the instant that you added it? Whether you realize it or not, if you are claiming that the alcohol content reduced your fuel economy greater than the percentage of the alcohol in the fuel, then that is what you are saying would happen and you'd have to walk back a couple of miles to get your car. VBG...

Now there is no denying that it takes more alcohol to properly charge a cylinder and achieve good combustion than it does gasoline but it is not as dramatic as some herd knowledge would have others believe. It is in fact less then 3% and with improvements in the engines (see Fords Ecoboost) that is now being negated completely compared to older engine designs.

stever

E10 sometimes tests out to 12 to 14% alcohol.

I don't know if you're far enough north, but E-85 is actually E-70 in the winter in cold weather (Northern Tier) states. (Fuel School - hey, you're a car doc, this guy is a gas doc)

texases

Sorry, cardoc, I've been doing my homework for quite a few years. The CO2 benefits of ethanol are slight to none, once all the processes of making ethanol are included, and the costs to the environment of aggressive corn agriculture are large. The amount of water used to create a gallon of ethanol is huge, the creation of the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico from agricultural runoff is a real, and growing problem, the impact of turning nearly half our corn crop into fuel is criminal when it comes to the food needs of the poorer countries in the world.

As for compression ratios, I know all about the modern high compression engines that run fine on gas. The prior post referred to taking advantage of the 105 octane of ethanol to use even higher compression, thereby compensating to some degree for ethanol's lower BTU content. My point is that can't be done while maintaining compatibility with regular gasoline. An engine with 17:1 compression ratio to maximize efficiency with ethanol couldn't run on E10.

thecardoc3

An engine with 17:1 compression ratio to maximize efficiency with ethanol couldn't run on E10

Then along comes an engine system that through use of variable valve timing can actually change its displacement depending on the operating conditions (simulating an Atkinson cycle engine) which reduces its compression to a level below that which would be achieved with the given combustion chamber and at the same time uses a stratified air/fuel charge with a second pulse to charge the cylinder very late in the compression stroke to control knocking and all of a sudden all of the previous limitations are overcome.

The agricultural run off problem is real but it is very misleading to hang the majority of the blame on ethanol production for fuel. What purpose does it fill to try and shift blame in that direction other than to fill a different agenda?

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture.cfm

Meanwhile....

http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/10438/ethanol-industry-examines-implications-of-record-corn-crop

Yes close to 40% of corn production is going into ethanol, but look at how much of that ends up going back as feed stock. Ethanol and DGS (feed from byproducts after ethanol production)

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/cornbalancesheet.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx

stever

Now take away the ethanol subsidy and see what happens. What is the subsidy - .51 cents a gallon?

thecardoc3

Scroll down to Tariffs and Tax Credits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States

stever

Clear as mud. The Tariffs section says the subsidies have expired but the Feedstocks section talks about the .51 cents a gallon subsidy as if it's still in place. There's so much pork going to farmers, who knows what the real numbers are.

Good News For Corn, Bad News For You (usnews.com)

thecardoc3

Credit #84 of the article led here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/business/energy-environment/after-three-decades-federal-tax-credit-for-ethanol-expires.html?_r=0

texases

If a gasoline engine can run the same compression ratio as the ethanol engine, then there is no benefit to ethanol, right? That's the whole point of taking advantage of the ethanol's higher octane.

And the runoff problem isn't a red herring. If not for ethanol, tens of thousands of acres would either not be farmed, or would be farmed with other, much less runoff-generating crops.

But the big point is that ethanol creates little to no actual GHG benefit. So why do it?

stever

And my link says that the ethanol blender pump subsidy just ended (but apparently not for long). I suspect there's more subsidies floating around, not to mention state laws requiring stations to pump E10 for "economic" reasons, which really is just another form of farm subsidy.

It was a fun experiment that failed, mostly because corn got all the glory instead of "biowaste". The EPA just punted on rulemaking and the fight will keep dragging out. The fight over the Renewable Fuel Standard, explained (vox.com)

thecardoc3

texases said:

If a gasoline engine can run the same compression ratio as the ethanol engine, then there is no benefit to ethanol, right? That's the whole point of taking advantage of the ethanol's higher octane.

But the big point is that ethanol creates little to no actual GHG benefit. So why do it?

It isn't the octane rating of the fuel that produces the benefit. Ethanol is an oxygenate which is important for the controlling of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Part of the balancing act is that we need a certain amount of CO to reach the catalysts in order to reduce a much more troublesome waste gas, NOx. If we run a rich air/fuel (A/F) ratio controlling NOx emissions is relatively easy, but when we run a lean ratio we lose the ability to control NOx and that's one of the real tricks with GDI. We can run the engine and get good combustion with A/F ratios in the 17-1 range, but that also means we cannot reduce NOx when we do.

Conventional training used to tell us that Nox formation occurred with high temperatures and lean A/F ratios. The high temperature portion of the discussion was accurate but production of NOx occurs under both rich and lean air/fuel ratios, its only the ability to control the reduction of the gas falters as we go lean (lambda >1) .

PF_Flyer

stever said:

There's so much pork going to farmers, who knows what the real numbers are.

It's hard for subsidies to go away?? Who knew???

gagrice

texases said:

If a gasoline engine can run the same compression ratio as the ethanol engine, then there is no benefit to ethanol, right? That's the whole point of taking advantage of the ethanol's higher octane.

And the runoff problem isn't a red herring. If not for ethanol, tens of thousands of acres would either not be farmed, or would be farmed with other, much less runoff-generating crops.

But the big point is that ethanol creates little to no actual GHG benefit. So why do it?

Totally agree. Give the Gulf of Mexico a chance to heal from the constant flow of BIG AG water pollution. Let the land rejuvenate itself.

pcsenn

I rented a flex fuel vehicle and drove to West Virginia, via KY, averaging 33.8 miles per gallon. Because the tank as near empty, and I could get the e85 for 50 cents off the $2.97 price, I drove around for a while to find the station, and finally filled the tank. I reset the fuel economy guage, and almost immediately saw I had made a mistake. It was showing a 27.6 average. By the time I refilled, I was in VA and got a better price on the regular gas, but because the tank wasn't completely empty, even with another refill before reaching Tennessee, I still couldn't get back up to where I was. Fossil fuels for me from now on, and let's eat our corn.

PF_Flyer

pcsenn said:

I rented a flex fuel vehicle and drove to West Virginia, via KY, averaging 33.8 miles per gallon. Because the tank as near empty, and I could get the e85 for 50 cents off the $2.97 price, I drove around for a while to find the station, and finally filled the tank. I reset the fuel economy guage, and almost immediately saw I had made a mistake. It was showing a 27.6 average. By the time I refilled, I was in VA and got a better price on the regular gas, but because the tank wasn't completely empty, even with another refill before reaching Tennessee, I still couldn't get back up to where I was. Fossil fuels for me from now on, and let's eat our corn.

It sure is hard to get around physics and the amount of energy contained in different types of fuels isn't it?

gagrice

It sure is hard to get around physics and the amount of energy contained in different types of fuels isn't it?

I thought Congress was going to change the Laws of Physics to get more miles out of a gallon of gasohol?

PF_Flyer

gagrice said:

It sure is hard to get around physics and the amount of energy contained in different types of fuels isn't it?

I thought Congress was going to change the Laws of Physics to get more miles out of a gallon of gasohol?

Oh I forgot... there's that "magic ratio" that will be achieved by adding MORE ethanol to gasoline that will somehow produce higher mileage. We just haven't found it yet

kurt_s

Just so you know, all those figures about how it costs more fossil fuel to produce ethanol or biodiesel than the fuel you get out... That's only because the trucks transporting all the raw materials are running on fossil fuels, and often waiting in long lines idling and using gas because the facilities aren't big enough. With bigger, proper facilities and trucks running on the same fuels being produced, there wouldn't be any fossil fuels being used; plus with newer methods to produce fuels from stalks and leaves as well as the kernels, or from algae or bacteria, we could produce fuel from the trash rather than the food. Plus the whole not drilling into the earth, having oil spills, then resorting to fracking and other stuff when oil runs out. something we can grow each year has a lot more appeal. and look at brazil. about 95% of their country runs on straight ethanol

texases

Those 'produce ethanol from stalks and leaves and algae' are pure research dreams. And with current oil prices so low, it makes no sense to sink billions of dollars into ethanol. As for Brazil, your numbers are way off, more like 40% and dropping as they strive to increase their oil production at every opportunity.

scifi3dzoo

PLUS... plus... the E85 industry is heavily subsidized. So our TAXES are being used to "Artificially" drive the place lower. I thought we just paid on both ends b/c the price of FOOD has gone up b/c of this. But according to this study there's really no benefits. In fact,, drawbacks. Less MPG for one. It is MORE corrosive on your engine too but that's not addressed here. US GOV. doing yet another fine job tinkering with the economy. I guess in the end they'll just blame Wall Street and Big Oil for all of this like they did the housing melt-down.

dkviking

Ethanol would be a lot more efficient in a Diesel style engine. The problem is that we are running it as if it was gas. I have a Silverado from 2011 that can run E85 and I actually tried it on my last fill up. I did not feel a significant reduction is power or fuel millage. Maybe some changes have been made in the electronic controls on the engines in newer models. I am not a big fan of ethanol at all, and I am a firm believer that having 10% in the gas hurts more then it helps, but since I have a flex-fuel engine I wanted to try it out. E85 seems more like an agricultural gimmick then a viable solution. I think Electrical and Hydrogen/electrical will end up being the future.

learn

The term COMBUSTIBLE ENGINE means just that. It burns gas which is Combustible. Ethanol burns but does not have the combustibility as gas, that is why they use it in schools in classes.

ns2407

you CO2 emmision comparison need clarification. With gasoline there is 700lbs of CO2 emmision will not enter atmosphere. WHen you create ethnol and burn it, corn already got 700lbs of co2 from air to make corn plant which got released when you burn ethanl as fuel. So with Ethanol there is zero co2 net emmission.

texases

A whole bunch of CO2 is emitted on the farm and by the ethanol distillery to grow the corn and make the ethanol. Not zero net.

saharagold14

Right now, I am at a 76 station in Glendale CA where the gas price for regular is $4.69/$4.79. At the same station, the E58 price is $3.09/$3.19. That is a $1.60/gallon difference! That would make the switch more than worthwhile. I might have to give it a try.

texases

Your gas mileage will be about 30% lower with E85, so you won’t actually save much money.

kyfdx

saharagold14 said:

Right now, I am at a 76 station in Glendale CA where the gas price for regular is $4.69/$4.79. At the same station, the E58 price is $3.09/$3.19. That is a $1.60/gallon difference! That would make the switch more than worthwhile. I might have to give it a try.

Is your car designed to run on E85? Not many vehicles are.

69dodgeman69

Your cabin dioxide conclusion is stupid. If you burn alcohol you do not 'create' co². You release it back into the atmosphere. The co²was already there and pulled out of the atmosphere into the fuel (plants). When you burn gasoline this is entirely NEW co². It was NOT IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO BEGIN WITH. This is entirely different at should be measured differently. Burning gas CREATES co². Burning alcohol is like recycling it.

texases

It’s not that simple:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732

Ignats

I get 12mpg in my 2014 Expedition on gas $3.15 a gallon
and 10.6 mpg on E85 at $1.99 a gallon

ABQjoe

What about CO and NO3 emissions? Why would you expect less co2 emissions from combusting a higher volume of fuel?

thecardoc3

ABQjoe said:

What about CO and NO3 emissions? Why would you expect less co2 emissions from combusting a higher volume of fuel?

Gasoline is primarily C8H18. Ethanol is C2H6O making the hydrogen percentage of an equivalent portion of the fuel greater in the hydrogen to carbon ratio.

As far as CO and NOx go; CO concentrations have been allowed to remain higher (2.1 grams/mile) because CO is needed to get the catalyst to reduce NOx.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/light-duty-vehicle-emissions

hemi_dart

Some of the comments about CO2 being recycled below are not considering new farmlands which is a necessity. When you read articles involving tilling new ground, the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is a 30 year payback. The best part of E85 is allowing a race engine with high compression to run on the street. If you were to rebuild the engine and raise the compression ratio to 13.5:1 you would gain fuel economy and better 0-60 times but with the engine built with low compression the advantages of E85 aren't there. E85 should only be used on engines with raised compression or you're fooling yourself thinking it's helping anything.