Think 10% Ethanol sucks? try 15% !
 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Sai...&asset=&ccode=

Corn-based Ethanol is garbage. it doesn't even make sense to make them with Corn.

Most of us already hate that 10% junk in our gas and now they want 15% ?

man, I hate this place.


update : 1/22/2011

too late, gotta love morons and lobbyist and idiots in the government

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...-in-auto-fuel/

*sigh*

Update : 2/10/2011

Please "Like" This page ! SAY NO TO ETHANOL !!!!!

The 10% already probably causing some of the carbon problems. EPA allows 15%... yea same EPA that says it safe to eat the Shrimp and swim in gulf.

Even crappier gas mileage with no discount in gasoline prices whatsoever. Yeah!

You would think that all of the major american auto companies telling the EPA don't would it would mean something...such as: it's bad for the cars...don't

I really don't mind using ethanol for all those dull people who drive corollas and such, but they should maintain a parallel supply of gasoline with no ethanol for those who don't want it or drive cars with high performance engines.

It's been 15% out here for a long time.
Just call it E85 and pretend your car is faster.

hahahaha :hahano: Well it is safe. Not like those EPA suckers will swim there so yea its safe for them. lol



NYC has been using 10% for a long ass time and a lot of people still hate it. *sigh*

when the fuel line rubber starts melting and catch a fire. oh yeah its faster, night rider style. shit.

"Ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have pressed the EPA to raise the limit. Opponents, including a coalition of oil companies, automakers and advocacy groups, say adding more ethanol may damage car engines, boost food prices and hurt the environment."

Never thought oil companies would be on the "good" side. Bloody hell, it's the EPA, it's their job to figure out if we NEED more ethanol, not satisfy the ethanol producers.

Sometimes, I feel like I'm the only person in IL that understands just how dangerous ADM is in the long run.

wrong, WE should be the ones decide if we want garbage Ethanol or not. NOT EPA.

We don't like no f-ing Ethanol. It decrease mpg = longer trips = more gas wasted. So how does this help the environment ?


but sadly this is how this country works now, Government just decide everything for us. Where is our rights?

Of course those oil companies gonna say no, cuz the more Ethanol in the mix, the less oil they use = less money goes into their pockets.

As for Auto markers, they do concern that more Ethanol might harm their stuff + its hard to "proof" that its the Ethanol that cause all those problems = in the end they might have to take all the warranty claim cost.

mind u, NONE of them gives a shit about food prices nor the environment. They just want money.

Just like MMO with their Genetically modified seeds. Nobody knows they're a big ass monopoly and they actually suing farmers that never even use their seeds. Their reason is the farm next to them use their seeds and somehow some of them "transferred" to their farm so their corps contains their "patented" technology. Use our seed or we will sue your ass till u drop. sad.

heres what doesn't make sense to me. They put that in the gas to reduce pollution, because they figure well your burning less fuel. In order to go the same distance though we have to burn more fuel because our fuel mileage has gone down. So there way of reducing pollution is adding something to the fuel that reduces fuel mileage so we have to burn even more fuel to get there?

and on a side note vashgs are you comming on the 24th:P https://www.rx8club.com/gulf-rx-8-forum-32/dfw-cruise-october-24-a-205185/

2 groups of ppl are happy about Ethanols.

First is Lobbyist that works for ADM

Second is tree huggers

I don't think I need to explain the lobbyist part.

Tree huggers, they love whatever that "looks good on paper" oh my god it drops emission by 10 % oh yes thats all we cared. they never looked at the part that to reach the same distance the car has to burn another gallon or 2 of fuel which increase the consumption by another 10%. and the report stops there, cuz if the report have "it also increase green house gas emission by X% " those fuckers will be pissed and start printing shit on top of IBM/HP roofs again.

Admittedly, ethanol is better than MTBE. However, it's focus is being shifted from oxygenate additive to primary fuel source which is just... retarded.

ADM Exec: "Hang on! I've got a way to save the farms AND make us money! We'll burn our food in our gasoline!"

It reduces the world's food supply. Either by directly siphoning off corn in the US, or diverting agriculture to sugar cane elswhere. That starves out populations in third world countries. Less people means less of a load on the environment.

Not a plan that stands up to moral scrutiny, but at the top level that's how it works.

Ken

I am bumping this because I just read this:

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...514_058678.htm

Older article but now that they are bumping it to 15% WTF are we supposed to do?

I don't know about everyone's area, but the Shell station by my house advertises Zero Ethanol in the gas. That's where I go.

I am going to have to look around more closely now.

Being ours is a "farm" state, it is mandated by state law that we have at least 10% ethanol.

That sucks... i am glad i'm not in your boots!

It makes me think ---- Is Ethanol the cause of Rotary Engine failure.

but anyway, NY is a "go green wannabe" state and idiots running the NY government been pushing all these stupid Ethanol crap. I guess the Ethanol lobbyist gave them a lot of money ... I mean err donations ?

Its all 10% here and I hate it a lot. if they go 15% and my car dies or something funky happens. Im so gonna sue.

on the original article.

That simply means it WILL increase air pollution. and what exactly is "unacceptable" ? no one knows.

what a bunch of bs.

This just shows the government will do whatever it takes just to fulfill their foolish "goal"

*sigh*

There are three things the federal government can do to prop up a particular product or market.
1. Mandate a product be used
2. Impose tariffs on importation of the same product.
3. Subsidize products.

To my understanding, ethanol is the ONLY product on the market that had all 3 conditions. If ethanol was truly a worthwhile product then it would not need these conditions to survive.

Hmm, let's see...

Only 60% of the energy content of gasoline, takes more energy to produce than it produces (therefore, makes more pollution that it abates), can - at best - only replace 12% of the demand for gasoline (and only if all corn production is diverted to ethanol production), forces the entire food market to readjust, driving up the cost of all goods, is hydrophillic, so it destroys anything it comes in contact with that can corrode, has been a primary driving force in the deforestation of the Amazon, etc.

Lets throw tax money at it so that Iowa is happy so that my presidential bid has legs since that is where the primary is held...

If only they would switch to sawgrass for the production of alcohol. Or, allow the use of the oil shale deposits so we don't have to use alcohol at all.

Don't you guys get a "choice"?? at the moment we do..

I tried 20 bucks in my late fathers 323, did not like it, really, it felt like the tyres needed air...that feeling.

Never tried it on my 8, only use highest RON here, Now $1.40 a litre or $5.50 a gallon!!

The 10% E Crap they have here is like 2 cents a litre cheaper or 9 cents a gallon.

Go Diesel!

I am not a very political person for the most part but stuff like this makes me pretty angry. Is there any additive that can reduce the negative effects of ethanol? Do you this premix does anything?

Mix your fuel with water first, then skim off the gasoline from the top.

The future is diesel.
That is why it isn't available in a serious way here (and why it is, mysteriously, somewhat legislatively black-listed).
If the various players in the efficiency/conservation/environment movement here weren't in the pockets of the corn growers, they would have figured it out years ago.

Maybe it's the stupid regulations that need adjustment, not the engines.......

If the emissions are clean'n'green enough for London, Paris and Rome, how come we have to bow to the almighty Kalifornia Air Nazis?

Those Euros get up-close and personal with their traffic, and diesels are everywhere!

Precisely.

The regulations are in place to protect the corn subsidies first and then the petroleum refiners next.
If diesel was as profitable, it would be touted as a miracle fuel.
So, instead, they come up with some bogus limitation on sulfur...

BTW - I just ordered an ethanol test kit...

Okay, did some research and found that Murphy Oil (Walmart) has stations that are Ethanol free :)

http://murphyusa.com/About_Us/FAQ.aspx

So I drove down to the new Walmart and guess what? The pumps were Ethanol free!!! I mean at least the attendant said they were ethanol free and the pumps did not mention ethanol. But was weird is that when you chose your gas it asked if you wanted the pump to add an additive to the fuel for an additional $1.99. I wonder what that stuff is really.

This is it:

http://www.additech.com/How_it_works.html

If you ask the store is required to tell you the ethanol percentage. When they get fuel, its logged in gallons. They also log the number of gallons of ethanol they put in the tank. Both are done separately. They don't have to tell you the percentage, but if its over 10% here its illegal. You can do the math yourself with the numbers though.

Sorta.
Not all states have laws requiring them to label or disclose E10.
Also, the EPA has granted an exception for E15, so it isn't "illegal" - it just needs to be labeled on the pump when sold since the waiver only covers 2007 and up vehicles (for now).
Since the ethanol is mixed at the station (and usually isn't tested for concentration), the actual concentration can be off by quite a bit.

Well thankfully Texas does have a law in effect lol.

Texas' law simply states that a pump that moves gasoline with an ethanol content greater than 1% must have a label that simply states that the gas is "oxygenated". That is all it has to say. It had to say the same thing with MBTE.
There is no restriction on the quantity of alcohol up to 10% and it can contain up to 15% if it carries an additional label that reads "For 2007 and newer vehicles".

The gov claims that you loose about 3-4% of your fuel mileage when using E-10. Which means we should see a drop of only 1 mpg per tank. But we aren't. I can actualy get 2-3 mpg more running pure fuel. Heres what I learned though with all the vehicles I have operated. How does loosing gas mileage improve air quality? You have to burn more fuel to get to the same place. It cost us more in the long run though so I guess they win on taxes.

Cessna 182, and 152:
Are marked to never use Blended fuel. Warning on both aircraft state serious engine damage, and component damage will result from Ethanol Blended fuels.

1958 Porsche:
I had to do an engine rebuild on this vehicle. When I bought the vehicle the engine was a 1.8 dual carbed very limited modded engine. Bought and driven in california there was no way around E10 blended fuel. Had to replace cams, crankshaft, carbs, pistons/rings, fuel lines, fuel tank, mechanical fuel gauge, and fuel pump(was replaced with electric from the original mechanical which was destroyed). After I did the engine rebuild I found out from other enthusiasts that I was safer off running 110LL from the airport than blended fuel, and that the engines cannot be run on E10. That engine failed over the course of a year, and had no reason to other than it wasn't designed to run on E10. My compression dropped to the lower 70's when I finally broke down and rebuilt it.

RX8
Before I started fuel logging I would get 22.5-23mpg on pure fuel, and 19.5-20 or so on E10. Filled up on pure fuel and saw about a 2mpg fuel mileage increase back in october. Engine ran smoother, vehicle had lower temps, and acceleration was better. This is highway mileage of course, and it doesn't see a ton of highway anymore.

I also have a lot of questions on the RX8 involving E10 damage. Its known to damage fuel pumps in older cars, and we have fuel pump failure problems. Ethanol is very well known to be very hard on older fuel systems, and fuel systems of other vechiles(Boats, Aircraft, and Yard Equipment). Its known to damage lines especially rubber and plastic ones in all vehicles. Our MOP lines are more brittle than I can really stand. The MOP lines are being discussed in another thread though.

2500 HD Farm Truck:
We would normally see an increase of about 4mpg when driving from Llano to Dallas using pure fuel. The drive back to Llano was on Dallas blended E10 fuel. The difference in elevation is 600-700 feet. So its not because of the elevation difference.

Now aside from that here is something the government published for you to think about

Yes I read it says small engines, but I consider the RX8 to have a small engine.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/etha..._research.html

"the increased oxygen content in intermediate ethanol blends could cause operational and safety issues in small engines."

"At wide-open throttle, about half the vehicles had higher catalyst temperatures when fueled with E20." - I believe this applies to our vehicles as well, since I see lower temps when running ethanol free track fuel. Yes I read it says E20 but I believe it applies to E10 fuel as well. There are a lot of research studies going on that show the leaning out of the engine by the use of E10 fuel increases engine temps. This is definately not something we want in an engine that is already heat sensitive.

"◦Informal observations showed no driveability differences as a result of higher ethanol content" - Why informal? Why won't they post the formal research results?

"Three handheld trimmers operating with higher ethanol blends demonstrated higher idle speed—resulting from a leaner fuel:air mixture, which can be adjusted in some engines—and experienced unintentional clutch engagement" - Thats a bit scary. So the cars cpu has to adjust the idle down, but if your running a vehicle that doesn't have a cpu to do it then you can have serious problems.

"In 2-cylinder engines, temperature and emissions variations due to differences in air-fuel distribution between cylinders suggest multi-cylinder, open-loop engines might be more sensitive to ethanol blends." - Maybe this has some response in our engines as well. Since our engines do function on open loop principles. Most engines do run open loop when its colder outside until the engines fully warms up, not just small engines. (I also believe but I could be wrong that the RX8 runs in open loop after 76mph? or so, I read something a while back to a result similar to this)

(Article on E15 where AAA says it doesn't approve of it in vehicle use) Also if you have the time, read this: http://www.alexandrianews.org/2010/1...odel-vehicles/

Heres another study on why E15 is harmful to human health: http://www.ewg.org/biofuels/report/E...-Engine-Damage

"Modern engines are calibrated to apply the same type of fuel trim in open-loop as in closed-loop conditions and thus can maintain a stable fuel/oxygen ratio. In contrast, older vehicles and even some recent models cannot perform such adjustments for higher ethanol oxygen content in fuel under open-loop conditions, resulting in hotter exhaust."

"In the DOE study, 7 out of 16 vehicles tested (43%), including two 2007 model-year vehicles, ran significantly leaner during wide-open throttle as ethanol content in the fuel increased (DOE 2009). Vehicles that ran leaner during wide-open throttle compared to E0 baseline also experienced higher catalyst temperatures. Compared to E0, catalyst temperature was higher by ~10oC for E10, over 20oC higher for E15, and up to 35oC higher for E20. Increased catalyst temperatures due to ethanol blends would lead to accelerated long-term catalyst degradation, potentially causing significantly higher emissions of toxic air pollutants; the need for expensive, unplanned replacements that may fall outside of the original manufacturer's warranty; and a shorter useful life of a vehicle."

The DOE is the Department of Energy.

That sucks big time...
I guess that all you can do there is just keep it that way by quietly accepting it or spread the word out knowing that it'll be useless.
I like both choices!

That's why I'm happy that Mazda is going diesel first and not immediately jumping on the hybrid bandwagon like everyone else. I hope their engines are solid and free of major issues so that people won't shy away from them.

DIESEL..

Unfortunately Americans still related to Diesel as dirty, noisy and only used in trucks and tractors.

You have a HUGE hurdle to jump over for the mainstream "public" to accept diesel, and actually BUY the bloody cars, which has not happened in the past.

In Australia we are a little (a lot) more advanced down that road, Diesel cars have been here in some form for 40 years, even Mazda have had diesel going back to 1982 in the first FWD 626 sedan. Today more and more are going diesel, but it still has a LONG Long way to go.
Many here also still associate Diesel only for Trucks and Tractors and Buses.

Europe outsells ALL world markets for Diesel Cars...and I really cant figure why?
Edit: Apart from MPG..

Maybe because Diesel is cheaper than Unleaded in Europe?

http://www.drive-alive.co.uk/fuel_prices_europe.html

Diesel in Europe is anywhere from 5 cents to 30 cents a gallon cheaper. Here in Dallas its 30 cents more than Unleaded. Some places like chevron are at 3.60 a gallon for Diesel, 2.90 for unleaded and 3.39 for premium. Making it almost 70 more cents a gallon than unleaded doesn't help the cause!

and it used to not be that way... #2 used to be even cheaper than regular, up until 3 or 4 years ago. I was loving life when I had my Golf! Getting 40-50MPG using the cheapest fuel... sigh...

face it guys---its all about money/greed and a big brother government.
When you can --just dont buy it. I think that is all we can do?
Where is Ralph Nader?
OD

Hmmm, I will swing by today and see if the pump states anything else. What do you think about the additech stuff? It states that it adds a lubricant to the gas.

Docbeech,

Thank you for your very insightful information. I think we were seeing higher fuel pump failures in certain regions of the nation; ethanol content could really be the culprit.

Paul.

Yeah, I've been tracking that, too.
On some of the cars that are re-tuned to E85, the fuel pump failure rate has been extremely high.

Fortunately I have a few gas stations local that sell ethanol free gas at a premium. If you look you will probably find them. Support them as much as you can.

The worst part about ethanol is that I've read it takes 1 gallon of fuel to produce 1.3 gallons of ethanol. The only reason it is profitable is due to being heavily subsidized by the government. I'll see if I can find the source but I believe if you add up the fertilizer and farming required to harvest the corn allong with the energy used to turn corn into ethanol there is really no gain. Not to mention the fact it give's you less MPG.

mljhn you are correct. According to the DOE it requires more petrol to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than you save.

"Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price"."

Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol".

If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

Heres the source: http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

sorry to say but the problem is most people in the states are too stupid, I'm dare to say 99% of the drivers have no idea wtf is E10/E85, hell they don't even know what Ethanol truly is ! they probably gonna say like "oh its some corn fuel thats greener right? "

*sigh* very sad.

Sugar Cane is the best thing to make Ethanol, but guess what our government is too f-king stupid to accept that fact and like "ohhhh guess what, if Brasil can do it, why can't we? we're the biggest ! the best! what do we have? oh yes lots of corn! so yesss ! just use that ! even tho it sucks balls who cares ! just pull some bullshit to fool the public, make them believe its the best!! no restriction, oh yes we should pay those corn farmers to farm more corn ! w00t! we're going to be riccccHHHHH !"

You are so right on this man. The average auto owner has no clue what it is or if it is bad for your car or not and even if they did they probably could care less.

We don't really grow much sugar cane here. Wrong climate and the yield isn't as big per acre as corn.

What amuses me is that all the carbon-chasers out there seem to mostly overlook the massive carbon release that is happening in Brazil as they knock down the rain-forests to make ethanol.