Geokoppman:
I am going to leave the bold fonts off, they come across as yelling.
EDIT: Just saw your recent post. Sorry, I don't know why it happens. It has happened to me to. I use preview to check.
With the greatest of respect, you are mixing up facts left, right, and centre.
As I pointed out above, the Auto Technicians Guide to Reformulated Fuels, which you reference, is not talking about E85. It is talking about oxygenated gasoline, limited to 10% alcohol. Most of the figures quoted are for 2.5% alcohol. That is in the range of what we are burning today. When the report was written it was a new idea.
Once again: Pure ethanol has significantly less energy on a volumetric basis.
Applying math, 85% ethanol has only 85% of the impact on fuel consumption that the volumetric heat content would suggest.
Applying math, 10% ethanol has only 10% of the impact.
Applying math, 2.5% ethanol has only 2.5% of the impact. Interestingly, the report referenced above used 2.5% ethanol blends, and reports a 2% fuel consumption increase. Seems very reasonable.
If I understand your post correctly, you are burning E85, and not seeing any fuel consumption impact. I suggest that you are not seeing an impact because of the variability in your testing. It isn't real.
You are confusing things further by saying that it burns better. You propose that the combustion process is so much better that it 'finds' the lost energy. It is the
same combustion process. You haven't modified the engine. It has the same compression ratio, the same intake system, etc.
If you believe that the new link you have attached supports this 'better burning' then please go back and read it. They used a 1.9 litre VW turbodiesel, with a 19.5:1 compression ratio. They then ran that engine as a spark-ignited engine. The higher compression ratio supports the greater efficiency. They got a higher efficiency because they used a prototype engine, they didn't achieve this by changing an engine to another fuel.
When you converted your Ford pickup, did you put a diesel engine in there? Did you modify the compression ratio? Or does it use the same Otto cycle, with the same parameters, but with a different fuel? I acknowledge that the injectors are changed, they have to be to pump more fuel in.
I think it is great that you are supportive of alternative fuel technologies. I don't think it will save the planet, but it probably can't hurt. What I am asking you to do is to use real engineering, and real science, instead of the hocus pocus approach. Perpetual motion hasn't been created yet, and there are well-accepted principles associated with the conservation of energy.
Anyway, I'm done. Have a great day.