Kinda sorta maybe thinking about using it. Selling here for < $2.00. Only real issues I see is fuel-pump related, I don't want to use an electric pump and don't know for sure what carb. mods would be needed ( other than the obvious rejetting). Car in question here is '67 Coronet R/T , pretty much all stock exception being carb and ignition.

A couple of years back I did this conversion. I had NO issues with fuel pump or rubber hoses. With reguard to modifications, most of which will be to the carb. You must consider that you will burn 30% more E85, than pump gas. With that, all fuel side metering will have to be increased by 30%. This means, main jetting, squirters and IFR's. On the air side, just the opposite needs done. Idle, and high speed air bleeds need to be decreased by 30%. Modifications to the metering block channels need to be performed also. Quick fuel sells a conversion kit that works well.
I quit using it because of avaliability and a rise in cost in my area.

I also looked at a custom high compression ratio build of a 360 (or maybe 334 ci) V8 with the question:

"How much higher would I have to raise the compression ratio to reduce the fuel consumption when using E85 so that the cost per mile traveled was equal to, or better than, gasoline?

I also wondered:

"When E85 is not available and I am nearly out of fuel on a road trip, what is the highest static compression ratio that could be used on Premium 93 AKI, assuming I also carry a five gallon can of Toulene on long trips?"

Unfortunately I found that even raising the compression ratio to 15 to 1 would not reduce the E85 fuel consumption more than about a 'real world' 6% (less than air-cycle theory)
and E85 will still be more expensive to use for each mile traveled.

I also came to the conclusion that 12 to 1 is the highest compression ratio that Premium 93 AKI plus Toulene would permit,
and 11 to 1 is the highest static compression ratio for straight Premium 93 AKI gasoline.

I then looked into compressed natural gas instead of E85,
and found that CNG is more economical
on a BTU per $ basis to start with than either gasoline, diesel or E85,
and that the static compression ratio could also be raised to 15:1 with methane like it probably could be with ethanol,
so that you can get the extra 6%
and make CNG even more economical.

There does seem to be about a 15% decrease in peak torque with CNG,
whereas E85 would give about a 10% increase in peak torque.

Chrysler did make a CNG 318 V8 in vans from 1992 model year to about 1998 model year.
The 1995 Ram pickup sales literature says there was a dealer installed CNG conversion kit for pickups too.

I bought the official 1992 FSM Dodge supplement for CNG 5.2L V8s off eBay,
and the conversion does not look hard at all,
except that the original Chrysler CNG tank fill valve had a history of leaking,
and it probably would be better to buy a recent design of even higher pressure CNG tank with 500 mile range that would fit in the pickup bed and have a leak-free fill valve.

I also read in forum posts by pro mechanics that maintained 5.2L CNG RamVans in government fleets that those natural gas vehicles were prone to backfires in the 'beer barrel' factory intake manifold that blew the plenum pan gasket out repeatedly, and that a switch to the MPI intake manifold was recommended as a fix.

If your car runs ok on pump gas then don't expect to save money on an E85 conversion. On the other hand if you currently need race gas then thats a whole different story.

If you make 10% more power accross the board, then build a 10% smaller engine and get the added benefit of reduced friction. Then on top of that you get 6% more power from running 15 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 so you reduce the engine another 6% and then an engine about 16% smaller makes the same power but with about 16% less friction and pumping losses. That would help make up for the loss of BTU and still be cheaper than gas.

Wow, E85 is $2.99 down here. Saw that the other day and was wondering why in the world anybody would use it. It was only a 10% saving per gallon, but at a 25% mileage cost. Net equals 15% Higher fuel cost per mile. Looked like bad government math to me...

I do not know how good or informative the article is but the latest Mopar Muscle has an article on this very subject using Randy's very own ride. Maybe he will chime in? It was interesting reading though and it might help shed some further light on this topic....

For both fuel economy and extra power
MIT proposed using E85 this way:
.. increase the compression ratio of the engine
.. add a turbo charger to the engine
.. downsize the engine cubic inches
.. use direct injection
.. add a separate tank for a 50/50 mixture of water/alcohol and spray this whenever needed to control detonation

85% of the time the fuel used would be economical 87 octane gasoline

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18304/page1/?a=f