Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
This would seem to sum up my feelings quite succinctly!
This would seem to sum up my feelings quite succinctly!
E15 starting to appear.....
- Thread starter Lead Shoes
- Start date
- Status
Just get rid if all subsidies. Gov't shouldn't pick winners and losers.
It is no longer subsidized, they now use a much more effective tactic - mandates.
I do drink ethanol on occasion, thank you.
And we have to prove this to you why, when all the manufacturers state that nothing produced before 2001 (unless it is a flex-fuel) should use E15, and most specifically deny any warranty coverage for those vehicles that don't allow the use?
Better drinking ethanol than Kool-Aid apparently.
Originally Posted By: shovel
I think some of you guys have been drinking ethanol..
If you can prove E15 did *any* damage to a car made in the 90's or later, I'll eat the car.
And we have to prove this to you why, when all the manufacturers state that nothing produced before 2001 (unless it is a flex-fuel) should use E15, and most specifically deny any warranty coverage for those vehicles that don't allow the use?
Better drinking ethanol than Kool-Aid apparently.
Originally Posted By: shovel
I think some of you guys have been drinking ethanol..
If you can prove E15 did *any* damage to a car made in the 90's or later, I'll eat the car.
i wont use it. i am forced to use 10% ethanol while folks in iowa get a choice between reg gas and e10. the market should decide what will be sold.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I do drink ethanol on occasion, thank you.
And we have to prove this to you why, when all the manufacturers state that nothing produced before 2001 (unless it is a flex-fuel) should use E15, and most specifically deny any warranty coverage for those vehicles that don't allow the use?
Better drinking ethanol than Kool-Aid apparently.
Originally Posted By: shovel
I think some of you guys have been drinking ethanol..
If you can prove E15 did *any* damage to a car made in the 90's or later, I'll eat the car.
How many cars made before 2001 are still under warranty?
The automotive manufacturers have already approved it for 2001+ and what changed specifically in 2001 model cars? Since the approval came *after* the year 2001, they can't have prepared for it by making some sudden change to the parts they make the cars from.
We're talking about a 5% swing in fuel composition on modern, fuel injected and closed-loop cars designed to compensate for wear, changes in weather and altitude, changes in regional fuel, fuel that has been contaminated, vehicles that have been subject to neglect - fuel trim in a typical car can self-adjust up to 25-30% before even turning on the check engine light. So if the most common motor fuel in America is E10 and a factory fresh car has fuel trim at +-0.0 .... Now an additional 5% of the total fuel load needs an additional 50% more fuel per combustion event your fuel trim goes up to +2.5 maybe? Not a big deal... that's about the same amount of fuel trim that happens when a resident of Yosemite takes a day trip to San Francisco.
Anyway yep, I'll seriously buy your car from you and eat it while you watch if you can prove running on E15 damaged it in any way.
Also lay off the dismissive "kool aid" bullsh*, it's akin to ad-hominem arguments which say far more about the person saying it than the topic at hand.
I do drink ethanol on occasion, thank you.
And we have to prove this to you why, when all the manufacturers state that nothing produced before 2001 (unless it is a flex-fuel) should use E15, and most specifically deny any warranty coverage for those vehicles that don't allow the use?
Better drinking ethanol than Kool-Aid apparently.
Originally Posted By: shovel
I think some of you guys have been drinking ethanol..
If you can prove E15 did *any* damage to a car made in the 90's or later, I'll eat the car.
How many cars made before 2001 are still under warranty?
The automotive manufacturers have already approved it for 2001+ and what changed specifically in 2001 model cars? Since the approval came *after* the year 2001, they can't have prepared for it by making some sudden change to the parts they make the cars from.
We're talking about a 5% swing in fuel composition on modern, fuel injected and closed-loop cars designed to compensate for wear, changes in weather and altitude, changes in regional fuel, fuel that has been contaminated, vehicles that have been subject to neglect - fuel trim in a typical car can self-adjust up to 25-30% before even turning on the check engine light. So if the most common motor fuel in America is E10 and a factory fresh car has fuel trim at +-0.0 .... Now an additional 5% of the total fuel load needs an additional 50% more fuel per combustion event your fuel trim goes up to +2.5 maybe? Not a big deal... that's about the same amount of fuel trim that happens when a resident of Yosemite takes a day trip to San Francisco.
Anyway yep, I'll seriously buy your car from you and eat it while you watch if you can prove running on E15 damaged it in any way.
Also lay off the dismissive "kool aid" bullsh*, it's akin to ad-hominem arguments which say far more about the person saying it than the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TechnoLoGs
And, it begs the question: WHY?
Big political contributions from the corn processors...to the best Congress money can buy.
And, it begs the question: WHY?
Big political contributions from the corn processors...to the best Congress money can buy.
Probably going to creep up 5% more every few years. If we import less crude oil we are more secure as a nation.
Think of it as a octane boosting additive for free!
[censored] yea. I wish there were an E85 station around me. Ran it in the old vette and it doesn't detonate no matter how much you increase timing.
Think of it as a octane boosting additive for free!
[censored] yea. I wish there were an E85 station around me. Ran it in the old vette and it doesn't detonate no matter how much you increase timing.
The only reason E15 is approved in 2001+ vehicles by the EPA (not auto manufacturers - an important distinction) is because the EPA didn't test any older cars. That's it. Manufacturers didn't magically equip their cars to handle E15 in 2001. The EPA just didn't see anything that caused them concern in their testing.
E15 has shown up in the Twin Cities at one station I drive past. They also sell E30 and E85. The E15 is usually 10 cents cheaper a gallon than E10, and the E30 is 20 cents cheaper.
As for me, I'll stick to what my auto manufacturers designed for and approved - E10.
E15 has shown up in the Twin Cities at one station I drive past. They also sell E30 and E85. The E15 is usually 10 cents cheaper a gallon than E10, and the E30 is 20 cents cheaper.
As for me, I'll stick to what my auto manufacturers designed for and approved - E10.
I really wish I could still find gas with out Ethanol around me.
I sure hope folks refuse to buy that E15. That will keep the E85 I buy lower in price! I encourage everyone to boycott ethanol! Please! I want the lowest cost E85 I can get my hands on.
When others stop paying some of the cost of E85 your price will go up for sure.
TiredTrucker what price you getting your E85 at? I checkout cost to use comparisons at fueleconomy.gov and usually find E85 to cost at least 25% more to use in almost any flex vehicle verses gasoline. Have also read where less than 4% of all flex owners use it and I believe it's due to the cost and negative effect it has on vehicles. If over half of all flex owners used it I don't think they would be pushing E15. I think it's real death could come to the negative effect it has on the environment.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Originally Posted By: TechnoLoGs
And, it begs the question: WHY?
Big political contributions from the corn processors...to the best Congress money can buy.
Central Planning. Just like some other countries, China comes to mind.
The sad part is that some here view this as the Govt supporting a fledgling biz until it can stand on its own. Simply NOT. There should never have been yet another farmer subsidy, then a friggin' mandate after that.
If it was so good they would have brewed some up and offered it for sale. The idea that our Govt only wants to help clean the air or save the oil is so simplistic it would be funny if it wasn't so sad and naive...
Originally Posted By: TechnoLoGs
And, it begs the question: WHY?
Big political contributions from the corn processors...to the best Congress money can buy.
Central Planning. Just like some other countries, China comes to mind.
The sad part is that some here view this as the Govt supporting a fledgling biz until it can stand on its own. Simply NOT. There should never have been yet another farmer subsidy, then a friggin' mandate after that.
If it was so good they would have brewed some up and offered it for sale. The idea that our Govt only wants to help clean the air or save the oil is so simplistic it would be funny if it wasn't so sad and naive...
No one is helping pay for my E85. All subsidies were eliminated over two years ago. Check with your hired help in D.C. Ethanol subsidies were eliminated from the budget for the last two years at the request of the ethanol producers themselves. It is standing on it's own. Is not part of the current farm bill that just got passed either. And one cannot blame government mandates for the E10 or E15 stuff. There are no E85 mandates, so the price for E85 is pure market driven. And there are no corn price supports either. The floor price on those is $1.79 a bushel. It hasn't been that low since the early 90's. All this century, they have been at around $4 a bushel, except for a spike a couple of years ago. Corn prices are the same, or even lower depending on spot market, than they were during the Bush administration.
I get E85 currently at $2.47 a gallon near me. There are some other places a little further away, that have it down to $2.39. I have run all the stuff..... E10, E85, regular, premium. Right now, at current pricing, I am saving a minimum of 2 cents a mile on fuel using E85... and yes, that is with adjustments due to different mpg I get than with the other fuels. For my 2013 Silverado with a 5.3L engine. I do not see the big spread between gas and E85. It plays out around a 3 mpg difference, at the worse. Even during the winter in the upper midwest with the cold snaps we have had recently and the those strong winds, we still got 15 mpg with E85 on a recent road trip to NW Iowa. The best I have ever gotten with this pickup, even on gasoline, is about 18 mpg, and that was in the summer. Most times not even that. Not a lot of 4 lane highway stuff. Mostly gravel road and two lane back roads. It goes on the 4 lane maybe two or three times a month. Even the road trip was primarily two lane roads.
I get E85 currently at $2.47 a gallon near me. There are some other places a little further away, that have it down to $2.39. I have run all the stuff..... E10, E85, regular, premium. Right now, at current pricing, I am saving a minimum of 2 cents a mile on fuel using E85... and yes, that is with adjustments due to different mpg I get than with the other fuels. For my 2013 Silverado with a 5.3L engine. I do not see the big spread between gas and E85. It plays out around a 3 mpg difference, at the worse. Even during the winter in the upper midwest with the cold snaps we have had recently and the those strong winds, we still got 15 mpg with E85 on a recent road trip to NW Iowa. The best I have ever gotten with this pickup, even on gasoline, is about 18 mpg, and that was in the summer. Most times not even that. Not a lot of 4 lane highway stuff. Mostly gravel road and two lane back roads. It goes on the 4 lane maybe two or three times a month. Even the road trip was primarily two lane roads.
A mandate is even better than a subsidy!
And we never spend anything on Farmers, do we...
http://www.cato.org/blog/farm-bill-spending-49-percent?gclid=COvl0tO5vLwCFdHm7AodMBQAUQ
I own many flex fuel vehicles now in our fleet and would be more than pleased to try E85 in any of them. It would be a simple economic experiment for us, we would CHOOSE a fuel we liked for whatever reasons we want to use for justification.
I like freedom, and I like choices. I do not like mandates or Central Planning.
And we never spend anything on Farmers, do we...
http://www.cato.org/blog/farm-bill-spending-49-percent?gclid=COvl0tO5vLwCFdHm7AodMBQAUQ
I own many flex fuel vehicles now in our fleet and would be more than pleased to try E85 in any of them. It would be a simple economic experiment for us, we would CHOOSE a fuel we liked for whatever reasons we want to use for justification.
I like freedom, and I like choices. I do not like mandates or Central Planning.
What that article failed to reference, is that over 75% of the farm bill is..... food stamps! That's right. Call your congressman or senator and they will tell you. Food stamps alone comprise over 75% of the total 2014 farm bill. The reason that the farm bill is larger is that there are almost 50% more people on food stamps since 2008. And what others fail to keep in mind is that the entire food inspection program, also administered by the DOA comes out of that budget. Along with all the administrative costs to run that agency. By the time we get to the farmers, it is not the huge thing some think it is.
The Department of Agriculture is who is in charge of the Food Stamp program. Bet you didn't know that did ya? I do love how folks will skew the numbers to try and make a case. A mind can be a terrible thing to waste.
The Department of Agriculture is who is in charge of the Food Stamp program. Bet you didn't know that did ya? I do love how folks will skew the numbers to try and make a case. A mind can be a terrible thing to waste.
TiredTrucker your right about the food stamp program. It's a large part of the reason Obama is running up the debt. The mandates need to be removed but they also need to make sure ethanol gets fair market presence. We were better off when there were good setaside programs and farmers were subsidized at the mailbox. Since 2008 the average family is paying over $2000 per year more for groceries. If groceries could go back to what they were I would sooner see the farmer get some of that money in subsidies. It's hard to watch commercials on how clean ethanol is when we know it's the exact opposite to what their telling us, but that's pretty much true of any ethanol ad. Now meat prices are soaring and the media is careful not to associate corn ethanol to it. Yet we know livestock levels are and have been the lowest they have been since 1952 and is directly related to the high price of corn.
TiredTrucker Iowa must subsidize your E85. Fueleconomy.gov has it at a little over $3 a gallon by national average. In Minnesota Super America ran a program lowering ethanol prices to where consumers would use it. It needs to be about 30% less to break even. To me breaking even would not be good enough when you take in all the negatives. In the open market ethanol has almost always been more expensive than gas when actual cost to use is taken into consideration. Without mandates corn ethanol would be dead in it's tracks.
- Status
Similar threads
