I disagree. If a solution can be found to give the best of both, I would be all for it. Just get the government out of the way and let entrepreneurs figure it out.

 

This is where I stand. If there's a viable solution let the free markets decide.

Example of free markets at work. Only 281 chevy volts and 67 Nissan Leafs sold in Feb.
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/01...ssan-67-leafs/

 

Its probably cause you have to charge it, and if you run out you can't do anything about it for a couple hours. Full plug in electrics are great if you didnt have to wait for them to charge.

But to stay on topic, If you go E85 your gas mileage drops, so your burning more fuel, and yes its good for performance, but all the emissions go up from the extra gas your burning. Cleaner, but more of it.

 

^More of a good thing can't be bad.

 

From what Ive seen this is wrong. The emissions dont go up overall. If that were the case it would be harder to pass emissions but as most people have found it's really easy to pass on E'

My empirical evidence, I was right on the border of passing in my 2.0l talon with 91 octane idling at 750. With the 2.4l, ethanol, and idling a 900 I had way less emissions output.

Id have to dig up the results (which actually may be in the car with the new owner now...) But on 91oct the 2.4 at a higher idle should have put out more emissions.

 

^thanks dallas for some experience input and agree with your technology similarity post.

if you are utilizing 30% more gas than previous it is still common math sense due to the amount of gas contained in the E85 you would be burning more but a lot less of traditional pollutants. The worst it can do is gain additional time til we find the new source.

 

no i think i understand what your saying...e85 is 15% gas compared to 93 or any pump gas for that matter it will be 90% gas. even if your using a little bit more e85 to get somewhere, in the end your still saving emissions AND gaining power.

its not like you have to fill your tank 5 times compared to 1 tank of 93. then yes your not doing anything. in the end i would much rather pay extra for corn at the grocery store if my pockets would heavier from saving money. as you can see gas is going up like crazy.

feel free to tell me if im wrong.

 

If you are asking what is the best gas to use to produce the least polluting bi-product then go with E-85.

FYI - running without a catalytic converter is bad for the environment.

 

There are no perfect solutions. Everything is a compromise. As mentioned already based on volume, ethanol has a lower energy content than gas. In addition, the current internal combustion engine is not really tuned to run on ethanol as efficiently as gas. Not standardizing on a formula and allowing the sale of different concentration mixtures (E85, E10, E25) doesn't help. So, the opposite is true as well, in that if an engine is tuned for 100% ethanol and made to be as efficient as current technology allows, adding gas to the fuel mixture will make it less efficient. Inefficiency generally leads to an increase production of by-products, which could be pollutants.

Just thought I'd also mention that gasoline itself is not an exact formula, which also contributes to the inefficiency of engines and any pollution control implemented. It's just a mixture of "stuff" that conforms to some agreed upon standard. As with any standard, there is a range, ie. a minimum and maximum range that it has to conform to be considered achieving that standard (with everything else in between).

As far as I know, the CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) allegedly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer come from the propellant in spray cans (Aqua Net and paint), refrigerant in AC and refrigerators, burning plastics, etc. There is no doubt that man-made CFC contribute to enlarging the hole in the ozone, but personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the invention of the equipment (or utilization of this equipment for this purpose) measuring the this "hole" pretty much corresponds to the about the time frame that the "hole" was discovered. Just a guess on my part, but it's like the saying goes... "It's not a problem, until it's a problem". Don't get me wrong because I am in agreement with the banning of CFC's, but at the same time, I think humans are really ego-centric. The earth was fine before humans, and it will be just fine when we're all extinct.

Now go out and drive what you want and don't worry about what others want you to drive and what gas to use.

 

oh trust me I drive my evo like I stole it.

i would just like to be more efficient while doing so. i figured someone out there had the same ideal so i posed the question.

I thank everyone for their information good or bad. all opinions are just that and doing further research on ideals helps me get to where I need to be.

 

ill stick to running 93. its worked for the past oh idk 10 evo generations. Your talking to people on here who run catless exhaust for more power, not sure they are going to change their gas nor drive an evo for that fact if they were worried about "less pollution"

 

guy with a pokemon avatar. can't take you seriously. plus you haven't read everything so I understand your opinion is your opinion without listening to everything else that was said.

I am not here to fight so I won't go on about it.

Rocket - please read previous post about E85 and it's amount of pollutants and then read the numerous posts about what the efficiency of the cat will be. then make a logical digest of the information.


MODS: please close thread. The information given was enough.

 

Closed per OP request.