Hi Guys,

I know some people in here advised against this, but curosity has gotten the better of me and I'm running E10 in the RX8.

I'm happy to announce that I can notice no difference in power, or fuel consumption. And I'm helping my local sugar cane farmers at the same time.

Give it a try.


Deon.

 

Sweet!

:D

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

So how much per gallon is this :D?

 

AFAIK, the 8 is listed as being able to run 10% ethanol...but there's no way I'm running it in my 'sweet' ride. There was quite a blow up over this about a year ago, and I think the normally august conservative Australian Automobile Association came out against ethanol!

 

Even though Mazda Oz is okay with running the 8 on ethanol blend, I personally wouldn't.

(Must be all those stories I keep hearing about the associated problems.)

 

If only methanol was cheaper and helped the farmers as well Nice cool intake temps then!

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

I hope none of the "E-Series" mentioned on that mazda site are Diesels!!! D:D

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

E10 fuel benefits nobody but the cane farmers, a group who have resisted change. Through political lobbying and clever conning of the general public they have managed to engineer a situation where an inefficient fuel (ethanol) is manufactured at high cost to the consumer. Petrol companies will go along with this because it's good PR, not becauser it makes any economic or environmental sense. I know it's tough to see a way of life disappear, but change in the way people make their livings is inevitable. To subsidize farmers to stay in an inefficient industry does no one but the farmers any good. Anyway, for those of you who have been made redundant in your city jobs, did the government offer your employer any subsidy for you to stay in your jobs? Farm subsidies are agrarian socilaism.

There is a strong argument that by reducing the local sugar industry and rationalizing it so it does actually pay its way, we are helping the economies of developing countries. Subsidized sugar prices in developed economies like Australia depresses the world price for sugar, which affects the return that impoverished farmers in Asia, Africa and South America receive. It is a lot better to help these countries by removing subsidies than by giving them charitable aid. So here it is: by using E10 fuel, you are actually part of a system which maintains poverty in developing countries.

 

OK. Only real fuel for me. I wonder if my charity in this context can go on my tax deductions

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

Prem Unleaded all the way......

 

Don't start me :D

 

thought most of the ethanol on the u.s. came form corn? i know brazil uses sugar. how is ethanol not benificial labrat. isn't indy going to switch over to ethanol from methanol on 2007?
and don't most gasoline refiners add ethanol (up to 10%) to their blends? adds to the octance rating and has reduced emission. granted it uses natural gas/oil in it's refining process... but the EPA has said it is a effecient source of fuel.

although it is hard to read through all the b.s. on both sides of the lobbing coin about it. ahha wouldn't it be easier if no one put any spin on things so we can find out if it is worth it:p haha ahh that woudl be sweet. but from what i've found out it isn't bad ...well at least in the u.s. i think like 3 billion gallons were used in 04 in gasoline. oh well i think i'm just babbling now.

 

Based on physical chemical data, the theoretical amount of energy which can be derived from ethanol is one third less than can be derived from gasoline. That's the scientific bit. Now for the politics. In the USA, one state (I forget which) subsidizes corn farmers by making ethanol out of corn starch. As an aside, as part of US farm subsidies, Coca Cola is sweetened with corn syrup instead of genuine sugar as it is in Australia. I believe that corn syrup also is used in the manufacture of Budweiser. In Brazil, the government subsidizes cane growing by making ethanol from cane sugar. The aim of the Queensland government is to subsidize the Queensland cane farmers with ethanol. My argument as to why this disadvantages farmers in under-developed countries has already been posted.

Of course petrol companies will go along with this; they're in business and have to be cooperative with governments. After all, they're still supplying 90% petroleum in their petrol. They know that the Greens have been quite successful in conning the public, and in this case they're in bed with the farm lobby (go figure!).

There is an argument for making ethanol out of waste carbohydrates such as plant waste (in this case the source is cellulose), but subsidizing farmers to grow corn and sugar cane is just a boondoggle. You, me and the poor buggers in developing countries are the losers in this scam.

 

hmm but since brazil started to use 385 in teh 80's they've lowered there oil imports by 70%. not having a dependency on foreign oil doesn't sound to bad to me. also the cost isn't too bad at all e85 here (virginia usa) costs 2.28 per gallon vs 2.20 for 93 octane (premium). i dunno maybe i am missing somethign in your argument.

haha i hate trying to understand things when i am sick

as for teh power from ethanol, i tdoes make less than gasoline...but you can run a higher compression from it so this would offset the power issues.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/fuel_comp.html

 

Labrat is putting an argument that why should the governement prop up an inneficient industry in a highly developed country, at the detriment of it being viable in an underdeveloped country.

Perhaps we can lobby for some Hydrazine to be blended with fuel to save some poor flailing industry

Cheers,
Hymee.

 

^^hmm guess it all boils down to what a persons deffinition of eficientcy is...according to the epa e85 is an eficient fuel..lol oh well.

hehe as for hydrazine..isn't that a rocket fule that stinks like ammonia? lol ewww stinky fuel hehe

 

Labrat is commenting on the poor efficiencies in the Sugar industry, and how it is in appropriate for those inneficiencies to be solved by govt regulation forcing the use of one of the idustries products.

 

ahhhh..ok gotcha..must be an ausy thing (with the sugar)....all our ethanol is from corn here in the us (well just about all of it). thanks for clearing that up for my Hymee...i was losing my mind must've missed when he was talking about the sugar (specificaly). haha but i'm a lill out of it due to illness:D thanks again.

 

Ya, here in the U S of A and Nebraska specifically you get 89 octane for $.04 less than 87 octane regular. I've used it in:
86 Mazda B2000 - still on the streets
89 Mazda 626 - totalled by the kid in 2000
96 Nissan Altima - in the body shop but running fine for a refrigerator
2002 Protege 5 - 2'd car at the moment
2004 RX 8 - resting till the rain/snow stops this week
I've never had a problem in any of these cars and I find the octane gain to be a serious inducement to continue using it

 

I read a government contracted testing of E20 the other day (found it by accident on the net) and it showed that E20 had emmissions and wear problems.
the E20 fuel caused more combustion deposits, higher wear rates and showed signs of hotter combustion. while these wern't on a rotary they are already a problem in the rotary design and I don't want to make them worse.

even tho there was evidence that a more advanced the engine managment can deal with the ethanol better (I guess the rx-8 has a good engine managment). I think I'll give E10 a miss as I would bet it has simmilar effects tho not as bad or obvious as experianced with E20.

 

^got a link..and which government...b/c i've read a whole lot about the opposite of what you've read.

 

it was on an .au federal gov site. I should still have a link but it will be at work. I'll check on monday. it was for e20 so it might not be a true indication of e10.

 

sweet i'd like to read it..if it is't too much of a bother. not all that much difference between e10 and e20. now e10 adn e85 that's a big difference.:D

 

study on E20. there is also stuff on the site for E10.
http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/eth...biofuels-2004/

 

That is a fairly negative result.

Cheers,
Hymee.