Ethanol and its affect on MPG

[Stevo_Echohb05]

Originally Posted by rty

I doubt it. Supposedly E10 burns slightly cleaner than regular gas.

But if you can only go 90% as far on the same amount of fuel.


On another note, I read in National Geographic (really old issue, it was in my dentist's waiting room) that if you converted all of the cultivatable land in the United States of America into corn crops destine for ethanol production you only cover 4% of your energy needs.

[TrailDust]

Originally Posted by Stevo_Echohb05

On another note, I read in National Geographic (really old issue, it was in my dentist's waiting room) that if you converted all of the cultivatable land in the United States of America into corn crops destine for ethanol production you only cover 4% of your energy needs.

Nothing has the energy content per unit volume like gasoline does. It took the discovery of oil and the refinement of gasoline to literally fuel the modern industrial age. If we were still relying on burning wood or buffalo chips we'd also still be driving buckboards pulled by a team of horses. Producing ethanol from corn is about one step ahead of burning buffalo chips. IMO.

[Yaris Hilton]

Growing corn to convert to motor fuel is stupid, for several reasons. But ethanol blended in gasoline in itself isn't nearly as bad as a lot of you make it out to be.

[nhcycle]

Originally Posted by Yaris Hilton

Growing corn to convert to motor fuel is stupid, for several reasons. But ethanol blended in gasoline in itself isn't nearly as bad as a lot of you make it out to be.

Unless you consider the destructive nature of the "blend" in carburetors..... and the huge amounts of ground water needed to produce the ethenol in the production process...... plus reduced fuel economy!?! Yep, Ethenol is a real "Green" winner!?

And it's such a successful government boondoggle, they want to go to E20 I wonder how many senators and congressmen are invested in corn futures

[TrailDust]

With over 800 billion barrels of economically viable shale and tar sand oil in the United States alone, wasting corn and other crops on ethanol production is absurd. Proof that insanity rules the U.S. Congress.

[Yaris Hilton]

Originally Posted by nhcycle

Unless you consider the destructive nature of the "blend" in carburetors..... and the huge amounts of ground water needed to produce the ethenol in the production process...... plus reduced fuel economy!?! Yep, Ethenol is a real "Green" winner!?

And it's such a successful government boondoggle, they want to go to E20 I wonder how many senators and congressmen are invested in corn futures

Yes, producing it from corn is stupid. I've used E10 extensively in lots of carbureted engines since 1977. Never had or saw a problem with any. I don't believe that any of our modern cars will have any more problems with E20 than E10. Many of us have been unknowingly driving around with E20 already, because not all fuel vendors are scrupulous about following the rules, and it saves them money to use the Federally subsidized ethanol. Some people carry around fuel test kits, and report that it's frequently above 10%. There's a small mileage hit, but it's proportional to the lower energy content per gallon of ethanol. There may be senators and congressmen invested in corn futures. The bigger issue is that there are powerful lobbies representing big farm interests and the ethanol production and distribution companies. They've got lots of money for campaigns, and can deliver lots of votes from corn growing parts of the country. That's where "government boondoggles" come from. They may be that to us, but to those with an interest in the corn growing and ethanol production, they're "essential programs."

[nhcycle]

Originally Posted by Yaris Hilton

Yes, producing it from corn is stupid. I've used E10 extensively in lots of carbureted engines since 1977. Never had or saw a problem with any. I don't believe that any of our modern cars will have any more problems with E20 than E10. Many of us have been unknowingly driving around with E20 already, because not all fuel vendors are scrupulous about following the rules, and it saves them money to use the Federally subsidized ethanol. Some people carry around fuel test kits, and report that it's frequently above 10%. There's a small mileage hit, but it's proportional to the lower energy content per gallon of ethanol. There may be senators and congressmen invested in corn futures. The bigger issue is that there are powerful lobbies representing big farm interests and the ethanol production and distribution companies. They've got lots of money for campaigns, and can deliver lots of votes from corn growing parts of the country. That's where "government boondoggles" come from. They may be that to us, but to those with an interest in the corn growing and ethanol production, they're "essential programs."

Well....you can continue to beat that drum..... this is a circle arguement (That's coming 'round again) and the facts are what they are..... making a claim of benefit against reality to the contrary serves no purpose. There is no proven benefit of reducing oil consiumption for blending ethanol and pitching the economic benefits for some farmers to plant useless crops is no different than price support subsidies. Neither are essential to anyone but the corporate farms that rip off the taxpayer. The sugar industry in FL is a prime example.

Once again - The orginal purpose of going to E10 was to replace mtbe to reduce pollution...... then a certain then senator pushed it as a "means to reduce oil import dependency" albeit an overly sold concept. It'd be interesting to peel back the details of his blind trust to see if he financially benefits for the "green" program.

Ethanol is no more than a political gimmick that serves up no benefits.

[PhatRoyale]

Originally Posted by nhcycle

Ethanol is no more than a political gimmick that serves up no benefits.

That pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about it too.

I went from averaging 30mpg in 50-50 city/highway driving to a measly 25-26mpg tops since gas stations have switch to ethanol blends the past few years.

It sucks.

[TrailDust]

What kind of highway mileage are you getting, Ray? I'm just curious since my nephew is thinking of getting rid of his Civic.

[Yaris Hilton]

Of course it's a political gimmick that serves up no benefits to us. It was pushed through by the Republicans, led by George W. Bush with much fanfare about leading America into a future of alternative energy, backed by the big farm and ethanol producing industries that profit hugely from it. I've never argued against that reality. I'm only pointing out that the fanatical opponents of ethanol on this board have greatly overstated the case against it in terms of supposed harm to automobiles and exaggerated the reduction of mileage. Believe what you want to believe, nhcycle. You're going to anyway. What anyone says about it on this board is going to have no effect on the situation. If you want it changed, you're going to have to make it an election issue in a great many congressional and senatorial campaigns and beat those well heeled special interests with their enormous "war chests" to fund their cause. Here, you can only rant about it to a small group of like minded folks who'll say "Hear, hear!" and make you feel better for a while for having vented your spleen. Nothing's going to change. I'm not going to sweat it. It's not a big deal to me as a consumer. It's not going to hurt my cars. And there are far more important political issues.

[nhcycle]

Originally Posted by Yaris Hilton

Of course it's a political gimmick that serves up no benefits to us. It was pushed through by the Republicans, led by George W. Bush with much fanfare about leading America into a future of alternative energy, backed by the big farm and ethanol producing industries that profit hugely from it. I've never argued against that reality. I'm only pointing out that the fanatical opponents of ethanol on this board have greatly overstated the case against it in terms of supposed harm to automobiles and exaggerated the reduction of mileage. Believe what you want to believe, nhcycle. You're going to anyway. What anyone says about it on this board is going to have no effect on the situation. If you want it changed, you're going to have to make it an election issue in a great many congressional and senatorial campaigns and beat those well heeled special interests with their enormous "war chests" to fund their cause. Here, you can only rant about it to a small group of like minded folks who'll say "Hear, hear!" and make you feel better for a while for having vented your spleen. Nothing's going to change. I'm not going to sweat it. It's not a big deal to me as a consumer. It's not going to hurt my cars. And there are far more important political issues.

Right - it's no biggie to you untill it bites you it the butt.... and when people it has effected do speak up, they're fanatical...... kinda a "see no-evil, hear no-evil......" perspective, eh?

E10 costs a fair amount of forced "consumers" far more money than a loss of mpg's and since doesn't affect you, to any level of discomfort so far, the complaints aren't valid???

Personally, my point of view is fact-based and is supported by an entire market that has been spawned to deal with it such as: specialized fuel conditioners that specificaly target the adverse affects of ethanol; the entire motorcycle industry has gone to fuel injection because of the destructive affects of ethanol (adding substantial costs to the buyewr) with the expectation that the injection rails will eventually fail as well and when they do = $1200 for repair.....same issue with marine engines. These ARE not so hidden expenses directly related to ethanol use. And then, the dopey beaurocrats want to go to E10 and it'll still be "allright"?

So let me ask.... are you in favor of the Fed's raising fuel taxes to drive prices to $6/gallon ("....because it isn't necessarily bad..") to stem the import demand? Jst curious as to what the underlying POV may be?

[Yaris Hilton]

Dude, I'm not advocating an agenda. I'm just saying, you've got no evidence that modern cars are harmed by this stuff.