Flex Fuel?

I wouldn't.

Just based on observation, vehicles that can run flex fuel, have a little tag on the rear, saying so.

That little tag and the cost of flex verses gas was what made me curious in the first place.

According to this Wiki article, only the 4.7L was available as flex-fuel in 2007.

I feel your pain at the pump, but the E85/E100 type fuels will cause all sorts of troubles for the truck engine.

Both my vehicles are flex fuel capable.

The problem is that although the cost per gallon for "flex" fuel (Alcohol + gasoline)is a tiny bit cheaper, the associated cost from fuel/gas mileage loss I suffer is far more than any financial gain I could ever realize.

Also; After using "flex" fuel it takes weeks for my vehicles ECM to readjust the fuel curve and get the mileage back to where it should be.

In your case most likely your fuel system is not capable of withstanding the corrosive nature of alcohol and there are some critical components that will catastrophicly fail.

Additionally there may be some mechanical components and other items such as timing and fuel delivery curve algorithims that you ECM does not have which are required when burning alcohol.

I am still confused how adding alcohol could possibly decrease CO1 when the result is such a dramatic increase of fuel consumption.

Not without a conversion kit( I've heard ~$1200), most say the savings in gas cost is not enough to justify the cost of conversion kit together with reduction in mpg...

http://www.ramforumz.com/showthread.php?t=73572

Ouch, reduction in gas mileage wouldn't be good! I'm only getting about 16 mpg the way it is, lol.

Internet auction sites (names withheld) are excellent for disposing of problems like that.

I say give it a try. I put E30 fairly often and occasionally E85 in my 99 Ford F250 when I am not running it on propane. 206,000+ miles on all stock V10 engine and no fuel system troubles so far.

Your 99 doesn't have all of the neat computer stuff that the 07 has.

I know for sure that my 86 GMC 7.4L wouldn't like it.

It may not matter; I heard today that several studies are showing a prolonged period of global cooling ahead.

No kidding.

What computer stuff does a 07 have that the 99's didn't have other than still having a actual cable connected between the gas pedal and the throttle body?

Are you suggesting that the newer vehicles while having been designed when alternative fuels like E30 and E85 were on the market are not compatible with ethanol yet they can handle the 10% ethanol blends without fuel system component degradation?

I don't know. Why don't they just advertise all vehicles as flex fuel vehicles?

There's no difference at all...right?

He might be fine, but I wouldn't run it in a vehicle that didn't say it was built for it.

I have wondered the same thing as well.

Other than the computer programming so little of the fuel and electronics are different between them that I don't see enough of a difference to matter let alone justify the sales price differences.

Years ago I had a 89 Ford Taurus with the 3.8l V6 and that was factory rated as a flex fuel vehicle way before most everyone had ever even heard of it.

Now relating to the high ethanol content fuels I have put a fair amount of personal testing of my own personal vehicles, tractors, lawnmowers, string trimmers, chainsaws, and anything else I can find that runs on gas to see where all the bad hype comes from and so far I have yet to find any problems with it other than engines with the new fixed A/F ratio carburetors need to have the stock fuel metering jet drilled out to get the correct A/F ratios necessary for high ethanol content fuels.

Yes they do absorb water more but then if the fuel tank cap is on and seals the way its supposed to it's not much of a real issue.

To me the biggest annoyance is having to change jets rather than have a good old fashioned metering fuel screw to turn when I switch between fuels or mixed blends is the only real downside I have found with high ethanol fuels.

At least with the E85 fuel it evaporates before it goes rancid and turns to varnish and clogs up the fuel systems like regular gasoline does now.

Even E10 is hell on the fuel hoses on equipment that wasn't sold in the last 8 years or so. I've had fuel lines disintegrate inside the tank on small two-stroke engines for chain saws, hedge trimmers, blowers etc. You might be able to adjust the high and low speed mixture screws on the carbs, but material incompatibility is a huge problem with older equipment. The biggest problems I've seen are the fuel lines and primer bulbs. I have not lost any diaphragms in any carbs yet.

If you have older power equipment, the best advice I can give is not to leave fuel stored in these devices. Run 'em dry with each use. Other than that, if you can get your hands on 100 lo-lead avgas, that's the best solution for portable power equipment.

You're right - E10 is tough on rubber parts. Fuel hoses, primer bulbs, seals, etc. Hearing about E15 becoming the new standard will mean even more damage.

The thing I don't get is that we're growing GMO crops for higher yield, because we need more food (growing population and less land for farming). If so, then why are we wasting so much "food" in our fuel? I've heard that we're now beginning to export crude again (probably due to new drilling and fracking) so we now produce more oil than we use. So why use our crops instead of exporting oil? Or does it have to do with government subsidies and "favors" on the Hill?

Oops, maybe I shouldn't have posted this - those pesky black helicopters are here again!

Don't even get me started.

It looks like the EPA may be backing off the new mandate....maybe. If not, there are going to be engine problems. And what about the CAFE standards that the emperor dictates?

How are the companies gonna meet mileage requirements, while the EPA is ordering higher ethanol content!!!!?????

It sure must be nice to get a degree in liberal arts, and go straight to work for the government, writing new laws.

Odd. We have had 10% ethanol blends around here since before I started driving back in the early 90's 20 years ago.

I can't recall a single fuel line issue related to ethanol destroying rubber fuel lines or parts from the inside out but I can name countless ones related to low quality hoses that dry rot or break down from engine heat exposure or sunlight from the outside in.

To be honest I have some fuel hose that I used for low pressure airline that has completely disintegrated without ever having had a drop of any kind of fuel ever ran through it.

If it's been common since the early 90's, I wonder why the fuel line in my chainsaw turns to mush?

It seems like it's been in just the last 6 years or so.

I wonder what other "miracle compounds" the stupid idiots at the EPA have introduced?

My theory points at the newer rubbers and plastics they use for fuel lines being the problem not the fuels so much.

It just seems like everything made of rubber or plastic now dries out or rots away regardless of what it used for whereas so much of the old stuff is still doing just fine.

I have some tractor and truck tires that must be 40 years old that still have not weather checked on the side walls but I have other sets that rotted to bits in less than five years.

My old Cub Cadet 122 garden tractor has a fuel line on it that looked old when I got the machine some 13 years ago but has never leaked even though that was one of the first machines I started doing experiments on with running full E85 fuels in. If ethanol was so bad for fuel lines why didn't that old of one ever give up?

Like I said I have more suspicions of the newer materials not being made right more than I have reason to believe the fuel. If it's the fuel why don't I have fuel line problems on my vehicles or is it because they are more than ten years old?

Ethanol is a solvent, so increasing the concentration from 5% to 10% will have an effect. On newer cars, there's no problem, since they are designed to run on E10.

I have heard that some manufacturers will void the warranty if E15 is used.

All auto manufacturers have made their systems compatible with ethanol blends up to 10% and covered by warranty since the 1980's and some even before that. Most are and always have been capable of working with much higher concentrations as well but not all are warranted for it.

Ethanol Facts.

Optimal Blend study of 2007 model year non flex fuel vehicles

History of ethanol blend fuels.

Maybe North Dakota just educates its public about ethanol blends better.

The point is around here ethanol blend fuel usage is a normal thing for most of us and has been since the 1980's. We don't blame the fuel when all of the information from the observations and studies seem to suggest that the ethanol in the fuel is not the new problem. Changes in the quality and types of materials that are now handling the fuel is where the problems come from.

Cheap low grade materials flooding the markets are why fuel lines, gaskets, and the like dissolve or simply just fall apart now. The ethanol was and always has been here without causing problems so either something else is being added or changed in the gasoline mix or the materials now being used are not being made to meet the specs they should or used to meet.

Personally as someone who openly experiments with alternative fuels I have come to the conclusions that the material changes are more to blame than anything else. Second to that would be something is being added or changed in the base stock of the fuels themselves being that years ago gasoline with or without ethanol in any concentration could sit for a few years before going bad but now it turns rotten after a few months at best.

Flex fuel means that a vehicle can run on pure gas or a mixture up to 85% alcohol (E85). If you vehicle isn't made to run on E85, don't do it. You'll wind up destroying the hoses, seals and gaskets made of rubber.

Flex fuel vehicles use a special material, so they can run on high alcohol fuels. If your truck was made to run on it, there will be a sticker in the window, under the hood or at the gas filler. If you don't see it, you can't use it. Also, if your vehicle is a Flex fuel type, you will get lower MPG using E85, but the fuel is cheaper. I just saw a gas station in Sylmar, CA (right off the 5 freeway) that now sells E85. The price is about 25% lower per gallon.

If the new EPA mandate, (15% ethanol in all gasoline), goes through, we'll all get to find out.

I know that all of my 2 stroke yard machines hate even the 10% blend, unless it is used up within about 48 hrs of purchase.

Now that you've mentioned 10% and 15%, there is a gas station around columbus ohio that sells it. I used to put it in a 92 Camaro all the time because it bosted a cleaner burn and a cleaner engine. About a year later the motor went to crap and never ran right again. I didn't think about it at the time but in hind sight i'm thinking maybe this had something to do with it.

Excellent responses all the way around, thanks everyone!

Wonderful! I hope the 15% ethanol doesn't damage things.

A friend of mine told me to run premium in my 2 stroke gas trimmer. It didn't like the 87 octane stuff and it does run much better on the 91 octane fuel. We don't have much humidity out here, so our gas doesn't absorb as much moisture and we can store it longer.

My '02 Chevy Suburban is flex fuel and it has an alcohol sensor which detects the percentage of licker in the fuel and makes corresponding adjustments. Without this information it may take significant time for the ECM to adjust its short term fuel trim and long term fuel trim changes that will occur with the extra oxygen that alcohol adds to the fuel. (In other words, your truck might run like crap.) I wouldn't bother because even though the E85 is cheaper per gallon, in my experience, my cost per mile went UP because of the loss of energy content.

Now, on the other hand, my son converted his Honda S2000 to run on E85 because he put a big honkin' turbo on the car because 240 stock HP wasn't enough. He has a totally programmable race ECM in the car and put it on a dyno over in Virginia to tune the car. They had it up to a maximum of 560 rear wheel horsepower, but he and the tuner decided to back it off just a smidge to 525 HP to keep from stretching head bolts and blowing the gasket. I think he said he was running about 16 psi of boost and the ethanol gives you much higher octane ratings so you can tolerate the higher combustion chamber pressures. His car now gets 15 MPG highway. He used to get mid-twenties. Oh, well. (I remember my make it faster, quicker, lighter days too. I survived, I pray that he does too.)

525 hp at the tires! Those little Honda engines are pretty good, but that's a lot of stress on the engine. Does he have the high rev model (early S2000) or the larger displacement one? And 16psi of boost (I'm assuming turbo vs supercharger) is quite a bit. I bet that engine makes some pretty nice noise! Also, is he running methanol or straight E85?

Yeah, crazy high power. He can't put it to the ground though. If he stomps it in third (or any lower gear), the tires light up almost instantly. This is with wider tires and rims both front and rear. He had to flare his fenders to make room for them. He does have the 2003 S2000 with the engine redlining at 9,000 RPM. He runs straight E85 in it. Apparently the engine is strong but the tranny and diff don't do very well. Most folks who hop up S2000's put in a Ford rear end (independent rear suspension out of a Mustang) and the second gear on S2000's are a very well known weak point. He has been 'stockpiling' transmissions and differentials.

Maybe run taller gears in back to decrease the ratio. It would give him less wheel spin and would make the car go faster - and he could take more advantage of the high revs.

2nd gear on the tranny will be his biggest problem (and of course 6th). The synchros in 2nd take a beating!

Sounds like a fun car. I know I wouldn't have a drivers license if I had a car like that.

I should also add he had to replace the fuel pump with a higher pressure unit and also installed high-flow injectors because the stock system will not flow enough E85 to keep it from running dangerously lean. It's kinda funny that when he starts the car, it smells like Sterno burning. (Not surprising, given the amount of corn squeezins' he's burning. -- A nod to Granny.)

Do not do it.

I ran E85 in my 08 Town and Country. (3.3L pushrod flexfuel) Fuel mileage fell from 21 to 16 mpg which pretty much killed any gain I made in a lower initial fuel cost. Oh, and don't turn on the A/C. That numbers goes down fast.

Engines and computers have to be specially outfitted to run E85. Sure, just about any gas engine can "sort of" run on alcohol, but the damage being done is significant.

If your main interest in going to the fuel blends is for cost savings then consider the following:

It isn't gasoline that moves your truck, but rather the energy delivered through the engine and ultimately to the wheels, so what must happen is that the cost per BTU for the fuel with the blend must be cheaper than the cost per BTU for the gasoline (assuming you consume the same volume of fuel in both cases). Unless you get much better fuel mileage with the substitute fuel you wont gain an advantage. Ethanol has a lower fuel value than gasoline, so on an Energy basis the fuel has less energy/gallon.

Unless the price of ethanol is reduced substantially, the blenders (fuel suppliers) can't significantly reduce their prices even if it were to benefit sales dollars. One just ends up filling the tank more frequently; costs are a wash.

Many years back, I ran the numbers and saw no financial advantage to flex fuels other than availability in times of shortages so you could keep on the road.

but thanks to government subsidies ethanol can stay cheaper, ummmm . . wait one minute, govt. subsidies = My tax dollars spent to help pay for someones fuel to be cheaper, Hmmmm, well that is only until it is made mandatory, then the government will remove the subsidies and we will pay more per gallon for less MPG. Progress!

I would really like to know the net gain/loss, (as a country), that ethanol is providing.

We subsidize the farmers to grow the corn; we subsidize the oil companies to do the blend, and we end up with lower mileage and stuff that doesn't work right.

Where are the positives?

G.Q. Good question score 1

Does the answer exist?

After all, we pay government employees to keep track of how many of us are out of work.

Did I just say that?

We pay thousands of people to track unemployment numbers.

They all retire before the age of 50, with a sweet pension/healthcare plan.

I guess I missed the bus................again.

What do you mean? It goes perfectly with the emissions systems concept of save the planet from fuel combustion byproducts by burning even more fuel less efficiently.

Thanks. Sometimes when I get a few beers in me, I start to have negative thoughts.

Government is good; they make my life better.

Government is good; they make my life better.

Government is good; they make my life better.

Government is good; they make my life better.

Government is good; they make my life better.

I'm okay now. Sometimes I forget.

Big Brother is happy now.

Me too.

Soon, I will have the best healthcare on the planet, and it will be almost free.

Canada and Europe will envy our healthcare plan! Shame on the world for ridiculing us!

On your vehicle the 8th digit in your VIN tells you whether you can use E85 or regular unleaded.On 2007 5.7l hemi engines the 8th digit is "2".Which designates on the VIN Plate Explanation Chart that 2 = 5.7L V8 CYL HEMI Mul Disp Gasoline (EZB).This is not equipped for Flexfuel,only regular unleaded 10% ethanol. "Mul Disp"means it has the Multi-Displacement engine management system and it's to give you better fuel mileage,where it switches off 4 cylinders when conditions of low load cruising are met.The only vehicles in 2007 that were equipped for Flexfuel were the ones with a 4.7L.

Good information, and a GA.