Assumptions

I don't go off half cocked about a lot of car things. I do a lot of research before making conclusions.

The previous post is seven points from a 400 level econ term paper. I got an A, but the paper itself is lost thanks to a failed hard drive.

I am not going to re-research the entire thing just to refute an anonymous commenter. I will point out that when you post chemical reactions, you should use real world data and not theoretical. The reactions listed (and deleted for not signing their post) were correct, for standard temperature and pressure in a pure oxygen environment. Those equations are not correct in an engine combustion chamber. Nitrogen is liberated from the air and sulfur from impurities in the gasoline and oil. No fuel is as pure as that theoretical reaction. You need to crack some college level dynamic forces engineering and do some calculus to get the conditions that you then apply to your chemistry equations. It's messy.

Tailpipe measurements trump theoretical output anyway and the measured results are not as wide as the theoretical.

Other advice, when doing a point by point rebuttal, actually address the point being made; don't change it to an unrelated tangent. For example talking about ease of filling the tank in the point about energy density. I never said E85 was harder to put into the tank than normal gas, I just said it takes a lot more of it to get the same work.

And sign your work! You're posting it, own it. If you don't own it, I toss it.

Do it like this; after you're done, hit return, hyphen twice, then put your name.
--Thag.