Nissan Titan Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Im from Minnesota and no ones mentioned anything about E 85.
Damn gas prices are outragous and E 85 doesnt get any better gas mileage. They get worse! Damn! ive had my 06 cc for almost a year and only ran 1 tank of e85. Just looking for any comments on e85. :upsidedow
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
baseballfanz said:
I have an FFV Titan, never ran E85. From what I've heard milage is not good. Plus around here E85 is only $.20 to $.30 cheaper than than regular gas. Not really a saving IMO.
E-85 is like putting a Band-Aid on cancer. Get's you nowhere.


Clint
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
right on i agree. its pathetic the milege it gets. if 1.00 cheaper might be worth considering
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
right on i agree. its pathetic the milege it gets. if 1.00 cheaper might be worth considering
Actually, figure that the price of E85 needs to be 20% cheaper to break even with the mileage loss. There are a bunch of threads that show this percentage to be an accurate figure to go by.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Guys, you're missing the entire point. E85 isn't about better gas mileage, it's about less pollution and independence from foreign oil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
understood. But iam still looking at the facts of mileage. Im just as concerned about pollution as the next person but like the idea of more mileage better :) IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
matthews said:
Guys, you're missing the entire point. E85 isn't about better gas mileage, it's about less pollution and independence from foreign oil
i agree it is also about putting money in the farmers pocket (my family :cheers: )
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
They sell the trucks here in NJ but there isn't any fuel. The cost of retrofitting the stations would boost the prices too.
If we were really appreciated for all our help around the world gas would be $1 a gallon. We need to cut off aid to all the countries who don't side with us then we'd have their attention. We are getting the royal shaft on oil prices.


Clint
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Rick Guess said:
i agree it is also about putting money in the farmers pocket (my family :cheers: )
I'm all for the helping the farmers and their families. One issue with E-85 is it doesn't travel well, it absorbs moisture as time passes. It's not the answer to foreign oil. It's just a temporary patch.

Clint
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,397 Posts
Cjack1 said:
Im from Minnesota and no ones mentioned anything about E 85.
Damn gas prices are outragous and E 85 doesnt get any better gas mileage. They get worse! Damn! ive had my 06 cc for almost a year and only ran 1 tank of e85. Just looking for any comments on e85. :upsidedow
I thought all titans after 06 had the FFV??? I could be wrong though..........wouldn't be the first time. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Damn didnt know it absorbs moisture:huh: anywho, The price of fuel in MN is around 2.70 gal anyone in other states cheaper? just curious
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
Guys, you're missing the entire point. E85 isn't about better gas mileage, it's about less pollution and independence from foreign oil
I hope you are kidding around. :)

Ethanol is a sham that is going to cost consumers many layers over; from tax subsidized incentive for the industry, higher meat and food prices as feed prices soar, higher ground water contamination from increased use of pesticides and herbicides, higher cancer treatment costs as a result from pesticide contamination, draining of wetlands to expand tillable soil, etc, etc. And even if every ear of corn today were used to produce ethanol, it would supply 10-15% of our daily energy needs. Ethanol is a sham.

Now, if we could efficiently produce methanol from human feces, that would be a something. No shortage of human waste, processing will address a disposal problem, and who knows- a rebate on your sewer bill for your "contribution." Heck, maybe even do away with a sewer bill as the profits from our "donations" would make maintaining the infrastructure self sufficient.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,840 Posts
Actually, no, I wasn't joking as none of my statements violate your post. Less pollution and lower dependence on foreign oil is all I said. Nothing about cancer (I don't know where pull that one from)

Personally I don't give a crap about pollution, I was just saying that complaining about gas mileage is missing the point about E85.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
well burning oil causes cancer, but doesnt everything in the world?

hell the sun, the thing most vital to life, causes cancer

if you run down that road

using your eyes causes cancer, reading a book causes cancer, there is not much that doesnt cause cancer if you say this-leads-to-that and that-leads-to-this

and before you ask by reading a book you are putting stress on you opticle nerves and that lowers your imune system and that makes you less able to fight off certain cancer causing agents

the list goes on and on

but what it comes down to is do we wanna give our money to some American hating (none deoderant user)

or keep it here

but i have only used E 85 in about 5 tanks

it is good IMHO but not in my budget (yet)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
matthews said:
Guys, you're missing the entire point. E85 isn't about better gas mileage, it's about less pollution and independence from foreign oil
LOL!!!!:jester: :jester: Your like the person that pops their head in a conversation and puts in thier two sense, but no one really cares. No offense, here we are talking about gas and milage, then you bring up the environment.:jester:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
Matthew, I hope you didn't take offense. Your statement about the "environmental benefits" of ethanol is part of the current rhetoric of ethanol promise where in fact, those in the media who tout the ethanol revolution are not very informed.

I hope not to get too off of topic here, but having an E85 Titan merits discussion of why would anyone want an FFV model? That conversation is difficult to sum up in a few paragraphs. I seriously doubt that ethanol is going to win the praises from the environmentally sensitive, but the 'anything but oil' mentality is real strong right now. That is the political side of the ethanol movement.

The sham part of the ethanol promise is "less pollution" and is a "renewable" resource. In fact, ethanol is starting to be under more scrutiny as to claims of how environmentally friendly it actually is. I will be bold to say that in four years, ethanol will be viewed as equal to gasoline in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions and as the effects are real, and no doubt that the press and environmentalists will be in action to inundate us with that rhetoric and finger pointing as to how we got there.

All the efforts to develop an ethanol market (at our expense) will do very little to reduce our dependence on oil, but may have merit in specialty markets and regional applications such as farming or fleet usage. Yeah, it is great to pump the tank full for a bit less money, but ethanol won't pay back unless ethanol costs around 20% less that gasoline, and it will not pay back in terms of "lower emissions." Ethanol emissions might be lower in some compounds when compared to gasoline, but higher in other areas such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and carbon monoxide. Acetaldehyde reacts to other airborne chemicals to produce peroxyacyl nitrates, which are highly toxic to plants. Pick your evil.

As for the cancer statement, there are two items that I was focused on. One was from the increase of cancer from the contamination of ground water in corn producing areas. The second was from a detailed study that was released last week on Environmental Science and Technology Online. This study focuses on the health affects of burning ethanol over gasoline in a metropolitan area such as Los Angeles. I have provided the link for anyone interested:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/pdf/es062085v.pdf

Here are some other recent articles on ethanol emissions:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html

http://216.35.221.77/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9647424

Lastly on the cancer comment, my wife's mother is currently dying of cancer. Her sister came out of a double mastectomy and leg amputation. Her father with a leg amputation, aunt with a cancerous tumor removed from her brain, her childhood friend with 6-9 months left, neighbor across the street, next door, and countless people of that community with higher than normal incidents of cancer. All of this from a community in a region of the state surrounded by cherry and apple orchards and heavy pesticide spraying, with pesticides being heavily linked to cancers.

Having been personally involved and watching so many people disinigrate to their death with cancer, I am very, very concerned about increasing acreage to grow more corn (a crop that is one of the heaviest users of herbicides and pesticides) and the long term affects on ground water contamination, our lifeline to a healthy life. All of that ethanol hoopla for the perception of reducing middle east dependence and the illusion of better air quality. We are being grossly misinformed about ethanol and that is all part of the sham.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
196 Posts
Musky - I agree with your first four paragraphs but think your cancer comments are off track. Cancer is not one disease, it is hundreds of diseases lumped into one broad group. The causes of each are not well understood but generally are attributed to genetics, life-style and environment (some may even be caused by viruses). The true incidence of most types of cancers in the US have generally decreased over the past several decades despite much better techniques for detection and the fact that our population is getting older. I am not aware of any epidemiological study that has shown an increase in cancers in corn producing areas or linked such cancers to groundwater contamination. Nor am I aware of studies that have heavily linked pesticides to cancer. The few studies that have identified pesticides as a causative agent of human cancers have been in manufacturing settings and have resulted in those pesticides being banned.

Finally, I would dispute your claim that corn production is one of the heaviest users of herbicides and pesticides. Any corn grower will tell you that the genetic improvements in corn over the past ten years have been phenomenal. They require much less herbicide and pesiticide than in the past and can now be reliably grown in areas previously not useable. US farmers can meet the demand if the price is reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
I don't think the pesticide argument is off track at all, but I don't want to open up a full blown cancer debate. But to ignore the effects of agriculture and ground water, regardless of the chemical composition, you know already that it is bad. Simple math will show you that if you increase tillable soil acreage, you will proportionally increase your pesticide usage, which will eventually make it's way into well water in larger quantities.

You can't ignore that ground water contamination from increased agricultural production will have long term health affects, including cancer.

http://www.chem-tox.com/cancerchildren/

http://www.oxymega.com/cancer.html

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/issues/pesticides-water.html

http://www.toxicsinfo.org/Lawn/Pesticides & Cancer.htm

http://www.slh.wisc.edu/wps/wcm/connect/extranet/ehd/pamphlets/pesticide.php
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top