I will absolutely stick my neck waaaayyyy out, and say...

Who ever gets an HHR that is an E-85 approved vehicle will not like it. I will place one requirement on the statement....using present engines.

 

Snoopy, what makes you say that? I think the present engines would be fine if converted. They would see GAINS in performance on E-85, but a DECREASE in economy. Just having the option of dual fuels is nice I think, our 2002 Tahoe is flex-fuel built, there just aren't any E-85 stations close to us!

 

I just wrote a 5 paragraph response and this forums' stupid software/server erased it and said I wasn't signed in. How the hell did it allow me to respond in the first place.

I'm not writing it again....I'll just say MY statement was by experience. Take your Tahoe and use E-85 for 2000-3000 miles and come back and give us a review. But I hope you enjoy 14-15 mpg (if you're lucky). If you pull a boat or a trailer, you WILL notice a difference. And DO NOT be fooled by the 105 octane. It is NOT an indicater of power. Alcohol has a lower energy level or BTU/gal, thus less energy less power.

I would really like to see the HHR members here, that complain of 25-28 MPG now, and see what their comments are when they recognize 21-22 from the E-85.....maybe 16-17 in the city.

 

Sorry you typed all of that Anyway, I was just curious as to why you thought that way. I've wanted to try E-85 in the Tahoe, just never had the opportunity. I guess if the fuel was even 50% of the cost of gasoline, the lack of mpg would be worth it!
I don't think the HHR in it's current configuration, even with a new higher efficiency powertrain, could ever be in the running for MPG champion. It's lack of aero-efficiency, and relatively high curb weight (ever lift the rear seat assembly!) would be a handicap. Add low rolling resistance tires and gain MAYBE 2%. With the gen ll HHR (if there is one) if the engineers take away the cool shape we all know & love, it's missed the point & might as well just be a cobalt!

 

I wouldn't mind a 15% cut in MPG... knowing that somewhere in the middle east, there is a terrorist with 15% less bullets.

 

I mix my HHR 50/50 with 93 octane and e85 and naturally there was a decrease in mileage. Now I haven't just "tried" this once...I do it on an average of 3 out of 5 fill ups and can still manage a respectable 400-420 miles (90% highway) from a full tank. I have 40,000 miles on my car and it has never once had any fuel related issues what so ever.....Regards

 

Yeah, 15% wouldn't be bad....not great as fuel prices get higher, but maybe acceptable for the reasons you expressed (and the idea that this country COULD BE somewhat self-sufficient). But the reduction is more like 20-30%. And that just is not acceptable in todays escalation of pricing. Actual testing by GM and several different organizations puts the reduction in the numbers I quoted. Even the ethanol supporting organization....which I can't remember the name right now.

 

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles

Compare gasoline mpg vs. ethanol mpg EPA estimates on some of the Flex fuel vehicles. Try a flex fuel Tahoe, for instance. Not too encouraging. 11 mpg is pretty dismal... or how about a 9 mpg ethanol Dodge Durango?... yikes!

 

 

I'm not going to try and "argue" the + or - of the use of E85 (or any variation of it). Most really don't know.

My agency is required to use it if it's possible. Granted, in my location, there is only one station off base and we usually fill on base. But I do try and use it while traveling. Last trip with our work 2006 Taraus, I averaged 25.7mpg highway using 87. I averaged 23.3 using E85, this was full tanks, not partials. At that time, 87 was $2.89 and E85 was $2.59. You can crunch your own numbers there (sorry, don't remember the gallons, but seemed to be a wash). Ethanol from corn is not the answer, but it's a start. They are coming up with better solutions, but it takes time.

We have agencies (DOE) that only use E85 exclusively as a requirement, they have their own tanks for refueling. There are the occasion vehicles (Rangers were one of them) that had issues with E85, for the rest, no problems related to the use of E85 over the life of the vehicles (mostly trucks here, kept for 7years or 60K miles). These are facts I know personally. There are a lot of people that "think" they know this stuff, but even the research they have is small compared to what is really out there. We are members of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition as members of the US Government. We get lots of data on this. You can believe it in or not, just please do a little research yourself first.

Here is some light reading if you are interested....

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1433/

http://www.physorg.com/news124385238.html

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...c-re.html#more

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...tudy.html#more

So, ethanol raises corn prices? You be the judge....

My organization, by order of the president, has to use as much alt fuel as possible. With vehicles numbering in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, it makes sense.

Personally, I would use E85 if my HHR or MPV would run it. If someone makes a conversion kit that is cost reasonable, I would do that also. Even at the same cost now, I would rather send money to US farmers and those producing ethanol than to the middle east. As ethanol becomes more available, the cost should drop compared to gas.

This debate will probably never end for some. Do your own research, don't rely on what others "tell you". Don't be a "sheep" either way.

I'm done here.