One thing I think some are missing here. While E15 may end up being at all pumps some day, that will not mean anyone has to fill up with it. I have used it for several months, and the pump clearly states, from the EPA themselves, that it is to be ONLY dispensed into a flex fuel vehicle or one made after 2001. That means, by implication, that E10 or E0 will still have to be available for older vehicles or those that don't want to use E15. Amazing how so many get their panties in a wad over something and fail to see the forest for the trees.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E15 coming soon?
- Thread starter dlundblad
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
EPA says its OK for use in all 2001 and up vehicles despite the manufacturers saying its not.
It's so nice and self-serving for the EPA to say that.
They don't have to pay for the vehicle repairs.
What would need repairing?
Fuel line corrosion, injector pintle erosion, and seal degradation. Flex fuel cars have different materials in the fuel systems to cope with the more corrosive properties of >10% ethanol blends. Flex fuel engines also use different valve materials.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
EPA says its OK for use in all 2001 and up vehicles despite the manufacturers saying its not.
It's so nice and self-serving for the EPA to say that.
They don't have to pay for the vehicle repairs.
What would need repairing?
Fuel line corrosion, injector pintle erosion, and seal degradation. Flex fuel cars have different materials in the fuel systems to cope with the more corrosive properties of >10% ethanol blends. Flex fuel engines also use different valve materials.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
EPA says its OK for use in all 2001 and up vehicles despite the manufacturers saying its not.
It's so nice and self-serving for the EPA to say that.
They don't have to pay for the vehicle repairs.
What would need repairing?
Fuel line corrosion, injector pintle erosion, and seal degradation. Flex fuel cars have different materials in the fuel systems to cope with the more corrosive properties of >10% ethanol blends. Flex fuel engines also use different valve materials.
It doesn't make sense to me. Its so incredibly easy to use flex fuel components. Why not use them. No excuse to be using junk parts like that. And engineers should build in margin. A difference in 5% is going to cause damage? That's a junk design.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
EPA says its OK for use in all 2001 and up vehicles despite the manufacturers saying its not.
It's so nice and self-serving for the EPA to say that.
They don't have to pay for the vehicle repairs.
What would need repairing?
Fuel line corrosion, injector pintle erosion, and seal degradation. Flex fuel cars have different materials in the fuel systems to cope with the more corrosive properties of >10% ethanol blends. Flex fuel engines also use different valve materials.
It doesn't make sense to me. Its so incredibly easy to use flex fuel components. Why not use them. No excuse to be using junk parts like that. And engineers should build in margin. A difference in 5% is going to cause damage? That's a junk design.
Sure its easy to use Flex Fuel components. Of course, that costs more, and that adds up fast over a vehicle production run. In 2001, E15 use was not mandated or suggested for use in non-flex fuel vehicles.
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
With the developing technology of making gasoline from natural gas; ethanol's price advantage will disappear. They are producing gasoline through catalytic conversion at around $0.60 a gallon now.
Really? Link??
With the developing technology of making gasoline from natural gas; ethanol's price advantage will disappear. They are producing gasoline through catalytic conversion at around $0.60 a gallon now.
Really? Link??
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Sure its easy to use Flex Fuel components. Of course, that costs more, and that adds up fast over a vehicle production run. In 2001, E15 use was not mandated or suggested for use in non-flex fuel vehicles.
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
Come on.
Sure its easy to use Flex Fuel components. Of course, that costs more, and that adds up fast over a vehicle production run. In 2001, E15 use was not mandated or suggested for use in non-flex fuel vehicles.
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
Come on.
Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
With the developing technology of making gasoline from natural gas; ethanol's price advantage will disappear. They are producing gasoline through catalytic conversion at around $0.60 a gallon now.
Really? Link??
This link is a bit old and says $1 a gallon. They just need to ramp up. Since this article came out they have increase production and have the cost down to the $0.60 level.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Natural-gas-to-1-gasoline-5701521.php
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
With the developing technology of making gasoline from natural gas; ethanol's price advantage will disappear. They are producing gasoline through catalytic conversion at around $0.60 a gallon now.
Really? Link??
This link is a bit old and says $1 a gallon. They just need to ramp up. Since this article came out they have increase production and have the cost down to the $0.60 level.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Natural-gas-to-1-gasoline-5701521.php
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
There is little excuse for companies making fuel system components that can't handle E15. However, going from E10 to E15 is an increase in ethanol concentration of 50%, not 5%.
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
There is little excuse for companies making fuel system components that can't handle E15. However, going from E10 to E15 is an increase in ethanol concentration of 50%, not 5%.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
There is little excuse for companies making fuel system components that can't handle E15. However, going from E10 to E15 is an increase in ethanol concentration of 50%, not 5%.
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
In actuality it is very unlikely any seals, tube, hose or injector made today will be affected by 15% or even 85% ethanol. Its the injector sizing and computer fuel mapping issue.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
There is little excuse for companies making fuel system components that can't handle E15. However, going from E10 to E15 is an increase in ethanol concentration of 50%, not 5%.
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
In actuality it is very unlikely any seals, tube, hose or injector made today will be affected by 15% or even 85% ethanol. Its the injector sizing and computer fuel mapping issue.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
You never heard of fuel dryer? Its just a bottle of ethanol. Usually a pint.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
You never heard of fuel dryer? Its just a bottle of ethanol. Usually a pint.
Actually, I think I get it just fine, thank you very much.
Cars were not mandated to be able to run on E15 when sold in 2001.
The EPA waives its magic wand and says "Its OK", despite car manufacturers saying its not a good idea.
Regardless of whether its a fuel component issue, injector issue, or other fuel mapping issue, the point is those vehicles were not intended to run on E15 - there was no directive or regulation that they had to do so.
There are plenty of chemicals, etc... where a 5% change in concentration can make a vast difference in the requirements for materials to "survive" their environments.
As time moves on, most of this will become a minor issue, like finding E0 for classic cars. Ford and Chevy are apparently OK using E15 from 2013 on, if I understand correctly.
Cars were not mandated to be able to run on E15 when sold in 2001.
The EPA waives its magic wand and says "Its OK", despite car manufacturers saying its not a good idea.
Regardless of whether its a fuel component issue, injector issue, or other fuel mapping issue, the point is those vehicles were not intended to run on E15 - there was no directive or regulation that they had to do so.
There are plenty of chemicals, etc... where a 5% change in concentration can make a vast difference in the requirements for materials to "survive" their environments.
As time moves on, most of this will become a minor issue, like finding E0 for classic cars. Ford and Chevy are apparently OK using E15 from 2013 on, if I understand correctly.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Sure its easy to use Flex Fuel components. Of course, that costs more, and that adds up fast over a vehicle production run. In 2001, E15 use was not mandated or suggested for use in non-flex fuel vehicles.
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
Come on.
You can't look at it as a 5% increase in ethanol content. You have to look at it as a 50% increase in the concentration of a corrosive chemical.
Oops. Garak already made that point.
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Sure its easy to use Flex Fuel components. Of course, that costs more, and that adds up fast over a vehicle production run. In 2001, E15 use was not mandated or suggested for use in non-flex fuel vehicles.
EPA waves its magic wand, and presto, all the 2001 components that weren't designed to compatible with E15 are just fine.
I don't have a problem with E15 availability. Use it if you want to. Just don't expect manufacturers to say its fine. I'm fine if manufacturers are told their engines must be compatible with E15 at some point moving forward. Just don't tell me the old stuff will be fine...
You're not getting it. There is no proper design on the face of the planet that should fail for a 5% difference in any parameter.
Come on.
You can't look at it as a 5% increase in ethanol content. You have to look at it as a 50% increase in the concentration of a corrosive chemical.
Oops. Garak already made that point.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Actually, I think I get it just fine, thank you very much.
1. The EPA waives its magic wand and says "Its OK", despite car manufacturers saying its not a good idea.
2. Regardless of whether its a fuel component issue, injector issue, or other fuel mapping issue, the point is those vehicles were not intended to run on E15 - there was no directive or regulation that they had to do so.
3. There are plenty of chemicals, etc... where a 5% change in concentration can make a vast difference in the requirements for materials to "survive" their environments.
You do not get it and you don't want to.
1. So you want to believe the manuf when it suits your politics but when it burns a quart per 1000mi you think their lieing d bags to tell you that's normal consumption?
2. The fact that is was not intended to run on e15 doesn't mean it can't. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Name some.
Classic cars can run easily on e15 and will run better on e85 with a rejet. You think 25+ year old cars haven't had their flexible fuel lines replaced yet?
Actually, I think I get it just fine, thank you very much.
1. The EPA waives its magic wand and says "Its OK", despite car manufacturers saying its not a good idea.
2. Regardless of whether its a fuel component issue, injector issue, or other fuel mapping issue, the point is those vehicles were not intended to run on E15 - there was no directive or regulation that they had to do so.
3. There are plenty of chemicals, etc... where a 5% change in concentration can make a vast difference in the requirements for materials to "survive" their environments.
You do not get it and you don't want to.
1. So you want to believe the manuf when it suits your politics but when it burns a quart per 1000mi you think their lieing d bags to tell you that's normal consumption?
2. The fact that is was not intended to run on e15 doesn't mean it can't. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Name some.
Classic cars can run easily on e15 and will run better on e85 with a rejet. You think 25+ year old cars haven't had their flexible fuel lines replaced yet?
Sigh...
1. What does oil consumption have to do with any of this?
2. Just because something can run on a fuel it wasn't intended to, doesn't mean it should, or that its fine to do so. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Knock yourself out. How about CRC Report 664?
The facts are these:
E15, used in a system designed for its use, will be fine. E15, used in a system that was designed for E10 may or may not be fine. Some cars have no issues. Others do.
1. What does oil consumption have to do with any of this?
2. Just because something can run on a fuel it wasn't intended to, doesn't mean it should, or that its fine to do so. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Knock yourself out. How about CRC Report 664?
The facts are these:
E15, used in a system designed for its use, will be fine. E15, used in a system that was designed for E10 may or may not be fine. Some cars have no issues. Others do.
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Sigh...
1. What does oil consumption have to do with any of this?
2. Just because something can run on a fuel it wasn't intended to, doesn't mean it should, or that its fine to do so. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Knock yourself out. How about CRC Report 664?
The facts are these:
E15, used in a system designed for its use, will be fine. E15, used in a system that was designed for E10 may or may not be fine. Some cars have no issues. Others do.
No need for facts. The EPA is another out of control regulatory agency that is going crazy with a political agenda. Bureaucrats running wild with power and no controls.
Turtle the Incredibly Smart One can do whatever he wants with his fleet. We all can too. I for one will tend to follow most mfgr recommendations...
Sigh...
1. What does oil consumption have to do with any of this?
2. Just because something can run on a fuel it wasn't intended to, doesn't mean it should, or that its fine to do so. Do you understand that distinction?
3. Knock yourself out. How about CRC Report 664?
The facts are these:
E15, used in a system designed for its use, will be fine. E15, used in a system that was designed for E10 may or may not be fine. Some cars have no issues. Others do.
No need for facts. The EPA is another out of control regulatory agency that is going crazy with a political agenda. Bureaucrats running wild with power and no controls.
Turtle the Incredibly Smart One can do whatever he wants with his fleet. We all can too. I for one will tend to follow most mfgr recommendations...
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
Changing from none to some is mathematically significant. So is adding 50% more. That's hardly meaningless.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
In actuality it is very unlikely any seals, tube, hose or injector made today will be affected by 15% or even 85% ethanol. Its the injector sizing and computer fuel mapping issue.
OPE equipment and leisure equipment manufacturers have been complaining about the problems ethanol is supposed to cause for years. Ethanol is just a great diversion for the real concern, which is cheap components.
[/quote]
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
Changing from none to some is mathematically significant. So is adding 50% more. That's hardly meaningless.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
In actuality it is very unlikely any seals, tube, hose or injector made today will be affected by 15% or even 85% ethanol. Its the injector sizing and computer fuel mapping issue.
OPE equipment and leisure equipment manufacturers have been complaining about the problems ethanol is supposed to cause for years. Ethanol is just a great diversion for the real concern, which is cheap components.
[/quote]
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
You never heard of fuel dryer? Its just a bottle of ethanol. Usually a pint.
OK, a pint of EtOH in a 15-gallon fuel tank of E0 is approximately "E0.8". Less than E1. A pint in E10 makes it about E10.8, not quite E11. So where does this "over a thousand percent" increase come in, unless you have a tiny tiny fuel tank?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
And a pint added as fuel dryer on e0 vs e10 is over a thousand percent increase. A meaningless statistic.
A pint added to a tank?
You never heard of fuel dryer? Its just a bottle of ethanol. Usually a pint.
OK, a pint of EtOH in a 15-gallon fuel tank of E0 is approximately "E0.8". Less than E1. A pint in E10 makes it about E10.8, not quite E11. So where does this "over a thousand percent" increase come in, unless you have a tiny tiny fuel tank?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 804
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K