mystrodo

I've been running non-ethanol prem but strangely it's only 90 octane compared to corn/wheat ethanol at 92..something strange is going on again at big oil! They are charging a major price premium for the clean non-ethanol yet reducing it's octane..this tells me they seem to be pushing the dirtier ethanol. Why?

note: a Harley guy told me of noticeable differences they found and noticed just dirtier and nasty *older looking fuel..it looked like bad brew!

..anyway, they spend the extra $$$ for non-e, looks like big oil wins again!

anyone having local prices for non-e..send updates to:

http://pure-gas.org/

mtnbikerva1

Too many of us are lemmings and just let Obama and his folks force this horrible ethanol fuel down our throats.
I think I have read recently though, there is some pushback and a little pull back from this Admin. They do not push 15% ethanol, Thankfully.

mystrodo

moutainbiker:
doesn't matter whose in office, big oil has a inbeded presence via massive lobby money in DC and in most capital cities, I guess Putin openly accepts bribes.

GTA_Driver

Ethanol is used to boost octane, so remove it, and the octane number goes down.

Last I heard, Shell sold 91 ethanol-free gas. Look it up in your area, see which station carries zero-ethanol premium gas.

In Canada (in Ontario), Shell uses 10% blend of ethanol for regular 87, 5% blend for mid 89, and 0% ethanol for 91 premium.

Personally, I fill up from a local station that has a 10% ethanol mix in their premium 91 octane gas, and there is zero mileage difference.

Just FYI, ethanol provides about 30% worse mileage than gasoline, on equivalent volume. With even 10% ethanol mix, you are getting 3% less mileage than pure gasonline.

So, if you used to get 300 miles per tank, you will now get 291 miles to the tank. Not that big a difference, in theory.

mtnbikerva1

Ethanol is not oil and does not come from oil. So I do not see how you think oil companies are forcing this crap on us.

haloguy628

It's the farm lobby that is pushing ethanol. Ethanol is made from corn and there are big profits in it for farmers. One of the side effects that nobody is talking about is the fact that food either made from corn or have corn in it have become more expensive because of the demand for corn to make ethanol.

Here in Colorado right now there is commercial running that accuses big oil of pushing "dirty fuels" without ethanol. They claim that ethanol infused gasoline is clean. The commercial was paid for by lobby group for food producers and renewable fuels coalition.

What they don't talk about is the lowered efficiency of ethanol gasoline, loss of conservation lands that were re purposed for corn farming and the increase in corn derived food. Typical deceptive tactics.

Wake96c4

I believe this handout to the farmers is also creating food shortages for the foreign countries that we help feed. I remember reading this as an unintended consequence of making corn ethanol farming more profitable than food farming.

Also, from what I remember the only vehicles that can safely use a higher blend of ethanol fuels is the current crop of E85 and flex-fuel vehicles. Our older vehicles will suffer breakdown of the fuel system lines and seals.

It wouldn't surprise me if this was also intentional to force people to give up their older (dirty) vehicles. Kind of like Cash for Clunkers was. It helped the auto industry but hurt the poor who depend on cheap used cars. The traded in vehicles were not allowed to be resold and were required to be scrapped.

mtnbikerva1

One big thing is even the cars rolling off the assembly line today should NOT use 15% ethenol. So I do not see how that gets rid of "old dirty cars or is like cash for clunkers"

Wake96c4

I never said all new cars are made to use this stuff.

"Also, from what I remember the only vehicles that can safely use a higher blend of ethanol fuels is the current crop of E85 and flex-fuel vehicles."

Getting rid of older cars is accomplished through expensive damage to their fuel systems and engines. Fuel system repairs are often expensive, creating a $2000 repair bill on an older vehicle might be enough to send it to the salvage yard. I used to go savaging the salvage yards on occasion, lots of un-wrecked vehicles with good/perfect exteriors and interiors there. Most had blown engines or transmissions that would cost a few to several thousand dollars to replace.

I liken it a bit to near 25 years ago when regular leaded gasoline was phased out. Older engine designs required leaded fuels for lubrication of the valve seats in the heads. I had the heads rebuilt on my 71 Buick with new valve seats to handle the unleaded fuel. I wonder though, how many non-modified engines met their end early due to removal of leaded fuels.

I made the C4C analogy to point out that the government eliminated a lot of perfectly good vehicles from the hands of enthusiasts, lower income, and repairers. C4C forced the dealerships to render the vehicles inoperative by destroying the engines in these vehicles so they couldn't be resold. Higher concentrations of ethanol in our fuels will accomplish the same thing over time.

What was interesting is that the EPA testing was based on unrealistic by today's standards vehicle life. 100K - 120K miles ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/a...15/e15-faq.htm ) Does anyone consider 100K miles the useful life of a vehicle anymore? That standard may have been true in the 70s and 80s but is certainly half or less of what vehicle life is today. I know several folks who are pushing 200K and even a couple of 300K mile cars out there. Myself, I going on 140K in my 98 Oldsmobile which still runs and shifts perfectly on the factory engine and transmission.

In the end though we're at the mercy of whoever has the better lobbying, not what's best for the consumer. The big Oil and Automotive industries don't want increased ethanol content, but on the other hand the farmers and environmentalists have a stronger backing by the government.