I have a 2000 T & C right now with the 3.8 and a ton of miles. I like the power and all the goodies on the van but am considering a more basic 2002 T & C with the 3.3 for lower fuel costs (there is a fueling station 20 minutes away) and the fact it has only 52K. Has anyone had any experience good/bad running E-85?
Porsche gt1
05-09-2006, 02:27 PM
I think you will miss the power if you switch. My 3.3 V6 is alright but when you giver it lags. Go figure hauling 4200 lbs on 180 Hp does not work so well. I would look for a newer 3.8 and go for the quick and easy swap. At crusing speed you will probably get better gas milage on the 3.8 as it will run at a lower RPM than the 3.3.
shelbydodgeimp
05-09-2006, 05:26 PM
Keep what you have, getting a new vehical to run E85 is pointless.
It can't save you any money, in fact it might end up being more costly as things currently exist. E85 is not half the price of gasoline (its a lil more) and it gives you half the mpgs.
If you get 20 mpgs with gas, you will get 10 with E85, so the cost of going somewhere if using E85, will end up being a lil more than if you just use gasoline.
I cant speak to the newer FFV vehicals but the older Mopar ffv's were terrible to get parts for. Even the fuel filter on the FFV spirit is ~$100, IF you can find it (and before you ask, no, you wont be able to find it).
appydriver
05-10-2006, 07:26 AM
Your Statement on getting half the mileage is wrong. My mom has a 3.3 and the mileage only varies about 1.5 to 2 mpg between E85 and regular unleaded. Its 50 cents cheaper here which is 10.00 per fill up cheaper than gasoline on 20 gals. You burn about the cost of one more gal. of gas running on e85, Plus your not sending money to people who would rather kill us than look at us!
PFUND28
05-10-2006, 12:29 PM
Well, I have to agree with appydriver, here E-85 is $2.30 while regular is $2.96.... I know Í would miss the power over the 3.8 but dang, this is rediculous - $45 to fill up a minivan! LOL oh well, I paid $128 last sumer to fill up my Suburban
ade
05-12-2006, 05:36 AM
with straight gas, i get 23/24mpg...using e85 i get 18mpg. same type of driving. i`m dissapointed with that plus the e85 is not much cheaper than straight gas. i`ll try another gas station in the bigger city when i get there later.at least my van is not producing much pollution. 2002 gc.
Porsche gt1
05-12-2006, 10:03 AM
So I guess I need to upgrade to the 3.8. wow what a differance.
PFUND28
05-13-2006, 12:28 PM
with straight gas, i get 23/24mpg...using e85 i get 18mpg. same type of driving. i`m dissapointed with that plus the e85 is not much cheaper than straight gas. i`ll try another gas station in the bigger city when i get there later.at least my van is not producing much pollution. 2002 gc.
Wow, ok..... well that's what I need to know!
Thanks
HeadlessHorsemn
05-19-2006, 09:38 AM
For most drivers and motors, the cost/benefit ratio is a little bit better using E85 instead of gasoline. Yeah, the power curve is different. So what? The main thing is that since E85 is produced in the U.S.A., major flooding in the midwest is the only/most likely cause of disruption in the supply line. Sounds better to me than a spike in gas prices on the whim of some mideastern OPEC nation.
Save the gas for your 1970 Chevelle LS6 Convertible and weekend driving.
