Not sure what you mean by practical. I hate making far more power for almost the same cost as pump. Its worth a good 20whp and 40wtq on a stock turbo 1.8t, even more on a larger turbo

 

Most cars aren't turbocharged.E85 cost lest per gallon but is still very inferior for cost vs mileage return.Plus it is tied to food supply for it's production which in return raises food prices.It mostly comes from corn which takes a boat load of fertilizer which is no good for the environment thus making the green point mute.Here's a typical scenario done by Edmunds.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/altern...3/article.html

 

In most areas, E85 was ~= when the cost of gas went way up. Also, there is no point running it if the auto makers dont take account for its increase octane by increasing the overall timing. Im sure more people (even those driving malibus) wouldnt mind filling up more often with a renewable resource and gaining another 15% or so in power. They are no making Ethenol out of more things than just corn (which byproducts went to farms as feed) so food cost would not be affected.

However, this is OT here and kind of mute now since gas is $1.50-1.90/gal across the country and new oil reserve in S.A. out in the desert that claims to have more oil than all of Alaska by far.

 

I suggest you go back and read the article. Headlines are often very misleading, because the people that write most of these articles don't know how to summarize what they are trying to say.

Like I said, Ford developed their system on their own, but when they realized the similarities, they said '**** it' and entered a patent sharing agreement so they wouldn't have to spend 10 years in court suing each other. Nissan is the one who decided not to even bother and just outright used the Toyota system.