According to Nissan and www.e85fuel.com, the Armada is a flexible fuel vehicle. While there is reportedly a 5-15% decrease in fuel economy, the 100-105 octane fuel is $.60 a gallon less expensive in Denver due to subsidies of E85 and taxes on regular gas.

Has anyone tried to fuel the mighty Armada with ethanol? What's your experience? 25 gallons (out of 28 gallon tank) x $.60 = $15 savings per fill-up... More on E85 in a New York Times article today at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/10/business/10alternative.html

Let's say we average 14 miles a gallon. 25 gallons yields a range of 350 miles.

Reducing that 14 by 15% yields 11.9 mpg, or a range of 297.5.

The extra 52.5 miles would require an extra 4.4 gallons of Ethanol, at a cost of $2.39 in Denver. That's $10.54 extra in fuel for the same range, assuming the worst (15% reduction in fuel economy).

Up front, I will save $15 ($2.99 / gal v. $2.39 / gal), but will truly yield only $4.46 savings per 350 miles. Granted, this is assuming worst case on the fuel economy of the E85 and does not take into account that E85 is supposedly more environmentally friendly and reduces dependence on the mideast, etc.

With only a 5% reduction in fuel economy, we'll experience a true savings of $11.86 per 350 miles.

Not all Armadas are fuel flexible. Before trying any of the ethanol fuels be sure to look for a sticker inside the fuel tank door and under the hood that states it is fuel flexible. You will cause damage to your truck if you put E85 in a vehicle that is not fuel flexible. My 04 Armada is not fuel flexible. Even if my Armada was fuel flexible I don't think I would use E85. The reduction in performance is not worth the very small savings in fuel cost.

What is the difference in the FFV truck? There is no price difference on the sticker. I looked high and low for an FFV model, but couldn't find one anywhere in AZ. If it's simple enough (like an ECU reflash) I'd like to get mine converted.

Mitch

What is the difference in the FFV truck? There is no price difference on the sticker. I looked high and low for an FFV model, but couldn't find one anywhere in AZ. If it's simple enough (like an ECU reflash) I'd like to get mine converted.

Mitch
It's not that simple. FFV vehicles have to have special fule lines, seals, etc. that will stand up to the ethanol.

According to the E85 website, only 2005 -2006 Titans with the 4 th digit of the VIn as a letter B. No other Nissan vehicles listed.

Ethanol contains 30% less heat energy then gasoline, so you may want to watch your milage closely.

I have an '04 Armada and I'm intersted in E85. Is there a "conversion" or some modification available to enable E85 consumption in my Armada? I looked at my sticker and it didn't say "FFV" on it anywhere...

Drew

I have an '04 Armada and I'm intersted in E85. Is there a "conversion" or some modification available to enable E85 consumption in my Armada? I looked at my sticker and it didn't say "FFV" on it anywhere...

Drew
The cost to convert to FFV is to much for you to see any saving in fuel cost.

i'd use it if there were any e85 gas stations in my area, there's only like 2 in NC and 3 in VA. I'm close to the ones in VA but they are all military bases. Bummer
and yes I have the flex fuel truck, i was wondering what the sticker inside my fuel tank lid meant until i looked it up online

i think the fuel mileage reduction is more like 30%, not 5-15%, which makes it no cost savings at all.

but if its 100 octane, that should have the potential for betrer performance, amking it worthwhile.

I wouldnt trust the gas door sticker, check your VIN. If 4th digit is B, your flex fuel, if its A, your not.

That high octane is going to HURT performance. In a nutshell the higher the octane rating the harder it is for the fuel to ignite. You want the lowest octane possible without causing pre-detonation, or "knocking"

FWIW E85 actually takes more resources per BTU to produce then regular fuel.

E85 would be worth it in an engine that was designed to run it from the get go....IE very high compression or high boost or both, but this engine wouldn't be able to run on pump gas.

You may save more at the pump running E85, but after you factor in all the resources used in making the stuff it is exponentionally more expensive $$$ and environmentally then good ol fossil fuels.

modern cars have very powerful and clean ignition systems. Igniting it shouldnt be a problem. There was a debate over the Armada/titan actually having tha same engine and ecu as the infiniti Q56 which is rated at 315 HP, most saying that they are identical except the infiniti recommends premium fuel, thus with premium in the armada/titan, you would see a performance benefit

modern cars have very powerful and clean ignition systems. Igniting it shouldnt be a problem. There was a debate over the Armada/titan actually having tha same engine and ecu as the infiniti Q56 which is rated at 315 HP, most saying that they are identical except the infiniti recommends premium fuel, thus with premium in the armada/titan, you would see a performance benefit

Well then that was a lot of people not knowing the facts, simply spouting what they read from armchair mechanics. The Q may have more agressive timing, or a, different ECU MAP, which would require higher octane fuel. If you don't believe me, just reaserch and then you will agree with me. Higher octane fuel simply allows a higher compression ratio engine to run with out blowing up. Here I will help:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/ecep/trans/b/b.htm
http://toyotaperformance.com/fuel_octane.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

modern cars have very powerful and clean ignition systems. Igniting it shouldnt be a problem. There was a debate over the Armada/titan actually having tha same engine and ecu as the infiniti Q56 which is rated at 315 HP, most saying that they are identical except the infiniti recommends premium fuel, thus with premium in the armada/titan, you would see a performance benefit


Igniting the fuel isn't a problem. Preventing it from igniting before you want IS the problem.

Igniting the fuel isn't a problem. Preventing it from igniting before you want IS the problem.

I didnt say igniting was the problem, somebody else did.

Are you saying the E85 is prone to detonation?

In a nutshell the higher the octane rating the harder it is for the fuel to ignite. .

Make up your mind already?

Make up your mind already?


LOL

in your post I took the comment "Igniting it shouldnt be a problem" as you thinking higher octane means "bigger bang"

Low octane fuel burns easier which means it will ignite easier, which means in a motor with high compression it will ignite without a spark. Higher octane fuels are less prone to igniting under higher pressure.

You can ignite the higher octane fuel but the "explosion" won't cary the same force as the low octane fuel in the same engine.

If you could run a high boost or high compression engine on low octane fuel without detonation or pre-iginition with everything else being equal (timing, boost, fuel maps, ect) the lower octane would produce more power.

am I making sense?

I didnt say igniting was the problem, somebody else did.

Are you saying the E85 is prone to detonation?

No E85 has a high octane rating (harder to ignite or less BTU) which means it is NOT prone to detonation. It would be ideal for high compression or high boost engines.

i think the fuel mileage reduction is more like 30%, not 5-15%, which makes it no cost savings at all.

but if its 100 octane, that should have the potential for betrer performance, making it worthwhile.


Very True

Consumer Reports recently tested a 07 Tahoe.
e85 vs. e10 Real World
e85 was 0.2 Seconds quicker 0-60MPH

Now the bad News
e85 got 10MPG vs. e10 14MPG on the same several hundred mile test loop

e85:confused: