Chris,
If that were the case, why wouldn't manufacturers tout all of their vehicles as flex fuel friendly? It's a marketing coup - they'd get to advertise that they are more "green" without spending one red cent on engineering.
I'll tell you why - because engine manufacturers have done a lot of testing, and they've found that without making significant changes to their fueling systems, most of their vehicles are not capable of running for extended periods of time on E85 without the potential for damage. Those changes - like replacing rubber seals with Viton ones - cost money. The time is coming when all vehicles will be E85 capable, but now is not that time.
There's a big difference between E20 - which some people are pushing, and which car manufacturers have said for years would void the warranty on non-flexfuel vehicles - and E85.
BTW, that whole comment about designing for higher ethanol concentrations - engine manufacturers don't design for what you may or may not use. They design to the regulations and minimum requirements they have to meet, and not much higher than that (especially if designing higher would cost them more money). True story, different industry - we had several failures on machines with "Brand X" engines in them in Arizona. These were EPA Tier 2 (>750hp) engines, which are required to run on 15ppm sulfur diesel fuel. The fuel onsite was found to be 19ppm on average... and it was causing injector failures. "Brand X" did not warranty the failed engines. Neither did we. 4ppm doesn't seem like much, does it? Certainly not as much as changing a chemical concentration from 10% to 85%...