January was before the hearings.

 

Hope they stop this total bs.

 

Time to rise this thread from the dead !

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110617/AUTO01/106170337/1148/auto01/Senate-votes-down-$6B-Ethanol-subsidy--

It's time to watch this F-KING BULLSHIT SO CALLED BIOFUEL ETHANOL a slow and painful death.

 

Amen to that

 

It's funny that EPA (which is loaded with morons, not scientist) wanna skip everybody and raise the garbage limit to 15% and NOW the government has no money so they gotta cut back in pretty much everything. rofl.

time to die sucker.

 

15% would be the guranteed death of a lot of high performance engines.

 

You mean everything, Ethanol is just a "water happy" garbage, it provides almost no benefit other than raising the Octane rating(cuz it's just alcohol) for short period of time.

 

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...ndate-for-2012

Is this a good news? or bad news ?

 

It sounds like the impetus to continue to migrate toward ethanol use is still there except gov is broke and market supply isn't cooperating with the intent. I think it's still bad news.

 

They need to get rid of Ethanol altogether, it's garbage, it use more power to make than it can produce, it's worst pollutant than fossil fuel, cost more to make. *sigh*

they keep saying Ethanol works for Brazil but they never talked about how much more pollution Brazil has right now + they chopped so much rain forest just to grow more sugar cane.

it's just sad that the government are full of lobbyist these days + how stupid people can get (they just accept whatever the government said)

 

Brazil cant keep vehicles of any kind running. Aircraft are having serious break down issues, boats are leaking serious oil and fuel problems in to the water, and the cars dont last more than 2 to 3 years. The only reason its not a huge problem is the economy in Brazil is growing so fast they have money to waste on new vehicles. For now. Soon it will catch up to them.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22077

Please just end this Ethanol bs once and for all ...

 

It already has...

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...umer-loan.html

 

You know what you could use? Lpg. Cheaper, cleaner and "honest" in its job.
Anyway if after the nearly unanimous dissent from the automakers you still see e15 then start thinking about what bunch your puppets your gvt is made of

I wonder what proof did the epa produce to show that ethanol isn't harmful? Did they cover 100.000miles on 10.000 engines on e15?

 

They tested less than 50 vehicles, of which more than a dozen failed the tests. They only tested to 80K miles at the most for some, others were just merely tested for half that. None were ever tested to the usefull life of a vehicle (which according to the EPA is between 100,000 and 120,000 depending on the vehicle). I don't know about most people but I believe the usefull life of a vehicle to be closer to 200,000miles.

 

Could not agree more... my dads 92 F-350 has almost 260,000 miles on it and needs a little stuff here and there but repair costs are far below what it would cost to replace. The 2002 Ford Focus I gave my brother (and that my wife drove for years) is nearing 150,000 miles with very few problems and it was neglected maintenance wise for quite a while. My 95 Miata has 127,000 on the clock and people who don't know much about Mazda think that it's only a few years old.

If they start making cars that last only 100,000 miles then we're screwed.

 

According to the EPA a usable life of a vehicle falls between 80,000-120,000 miles. Depending on how thier test results worked out with E10 or E85. I think this is horrible because thats not half the life I expect out of vehicles. My truck at our family ranch is a 2003 GMC and its got over 350,000 miles.

This doesn't include the damage this fuel is doing to aircraft and boats.

 

I'm going to invest in manufactures of fuel pumps for the most popular cars.

 

maybe that's why there was a failed plane in Brazil just couple days ago.

 

No, it wouldn't affect 99% of planes on the market. AVGas is road tax, and ethanol free fuel. Its died blue so when you check it during your preflight you can make sure. Boats yes, but I have been flying planes since 2005 and they specifically exempt avgas from ethanol policies and die it a special color. But its also leaded gasoline to protect the engines. 100LL(light lead) is the most common. Which by the way if you dont have a cat is absolutely wonderful to use in rotary engines. The light lead part of it is a great protector, even better than zinc. Its hard on fuel injectors but if you are only running one tank, its wonderful for apex seals and bearings.

 

I'm not sure about the light lead but common leaded fuel proved to be detrimental at times. Don't think about the seals but their springs and lead deposits

 

Light lead is different though. A guy at the airport I fly at has a 13B engine in his cessna and has been running light lead in it every tank for years. She still flys just fine.

 

With no cat and a 13B, you'd be fine - however lead will also poison your wideband O² sensor if you use one, so for a road-going Renesis, not the best.

 

I did run 100LL in my RX8 and when she was totalled she had 85K miles on the original engine. The plugs/coils/wires were last changed at 15K miles making them over 60K miles old. However she was compression tested at 82K miles and passed. Thats with some serious track use. Enough track use that I was on the third set of brake pads since I bought the car, I had to replace the brake lines, replace the tires, and a couple of other things. That was running a tank of 100LL about every 3-4 months. So in the three years I owned her she probably saw about between 36-40 tanks of 100LL and I never burned out a sensor or a cat. But again everyones experience would be different. The reason I did it was to help coat and prevent against ethanol damage, and I wouldn't suggest doing that unless you know what your doing. I did however manage to keep an original engine running at new specs until the car was totalled.

 

I get it now, thanks for clarifying