Recent Topics
PYB $2.99 Ace Hardware
by splinter
09/23/14 08:56 PM
Honda A01 vs HAMP HIGH PERFORMANCE OIL FILTER
by David1
09/23/14 08:42 PM
Coupon code for DTD---$25 off
by faramir9
09/23/14 08:33 PM
Front load washers: is larger cap. really better?
by Vern_in_IL
09/23/14 07:52 PM
Should I switch from Syn to Dino in my Nissan VQ?
by LexAtlanta
09/23/14 07:04 PM
Altima 3.5 hesitation.
by Volv04Life
09/23/14 05:34 PM
Amsoil EA15K50 or Fram Ultra XG10060?
by GM4LIFE
09/23/14 05:13 PM
Sunoco gasoline
by Chuckinator
09/23/14 05:03 PM
Burning smell after driving
by llmercll
09/23/14 05:02 PM
Wagner ThermoQuiet Or QuickStop?
by Warstud
09/23/14 04:51 PM
Will I Destroy my Parking Brake?
by SumpChump
09/23/14 04:50 PM
What kind of flower is this?
by tinmanSC
09/23/14 03:38 PM
Newest Members
mckeven, Edsel, ROVjr, Dieseltrooper88, bluearc74
51389 Registered Users
Who's Online
118 registered (01_celica_gt, 1 FMF, 01rangerxl, 2004tdigls, 147_Grain, 10 invisible), 1750 Guests and 193 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51389 Members
64 Forums
219721 Topics
3468025 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 ... 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3047914 - 06/28/13 01:33 AM Pure Gas vs. 10% E
markum Offline


Registered: 02/02/09
Posts: 52
Loc: seattle,wa
If this is a stupid question, I apologize in advance.

Is pure gas better than a top tier 10% fuel? I used to always fill with Chevron. I found a station called Cenex that sells pure gas in 93. I just never heard of Cenex. Pros and cons?? What are your thoughts on what I should be using?
_________________________
2008 Dodge Charger SRT-8
2010 Dodge Ram 2500 6.7
1997 Toyota Camry 2.2 (totaled @ 366k)
2012 Hyundai Veracruz AWD
2000 Toyota Corolla

Top
#3047938 - 06/28/13 03:50 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
BovineScapegoat Offline


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 235
Loc: Southern Ontario
In my area only regular 87 is 10% E. midgrade 5% and premium is always 0% Ethanol
_________________________
05 Mazda3 2.0 Castrol Edge 5W30 + Motorcraft FL910S
Redline MT-90, Filtermag, Shark Fin Antenna
07 Focus 2.0 any dino 5W30 + Motorcraft

Top
#3047955 - 06/28/13 05:33 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
229 Offline


Registered: 06/23/11
Posts: 714
Loc: Mid Atlantic
Pure gas and a bottle of Techron is the best.
_________________________
Eneos

Top
#3047974 - 06/28/13 06:10 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
PhillyJoe Offline


Registered: 03/19/09
Posts: 519
Loc: PA
Would you be mad if the bartender added 10% water to your 12 year old scotch?
Your car feels the same way.

Top
#3047996 - 06/28/13 06:52 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: BovineScapegoat]
Danno Online   content


Registered: 10/07/12
Posts: 756
Loc: Northern Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: BovineScapegoat
In my area only regular 87 is 10% E. midgrade 5% and premium is always 0% Ethanol


Not likely.
The only gas that is advertised to be ethanol free in Ontario is Shell V Power premium 91 octane.

Top
#3048005 - 06/28/13 07:00 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Tzu Offline


Registered: 10/12/12
Posts: 249
Loc: near Buffalo, NY
If find my 5.3l Silverado hardly pings at all on pure gas, and it seems finicky on what you put in it (especially in heat). My Camry beater gives me about 3mpg better on pure gas too. But the problem for me is that it costs more than super unleaded by nearly 10 cents per gallon. So economically I just run pure gas every other tank in my truck during the hot summer months. The Camry really doesn't care on way or another.
_________________________

Top
#3048008 - 06/28/13 07:06 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: PhillyJoe]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: PhillyJoe
Would you be mad if the bartender added 10% water to your 12 year old scotch?
Your car feels the same way.


I sure hope my fuel is not 12 years old! But I am in complete agreement.

Our fleet trucks take a big hit on 10% corn liquor, my car actually likes it for KR values but still costs me more as the mileage goes down with it.

Ever see the carb jet sizes in an alcohol fueled car at the strip? Some of the fuel pumps are like a commercial well on a farm! Takes a lot of liquor to make it work.

let's burn all our food as fuel and save the world...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3048016 - 06/28/13 07:10 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Danno]
Rolla07 Offline


Registered: 11/05/11
Posts: 1707
Loc: MTL, CANADA
Originally Posted By: Danno
Originally Posted By: BovineScapegoat
In my area only regular 87 is 10% E. midgrade 5% and premium is always 0% Ethanol


Not likely.
The only gas that is advertised to be ethanol free in Ontario is Shell V Power premium 91 octane.


I know that in Canada both Shell and Ultramar does the 10%, 5% and ethanol free thing with premium. Petro can and Esso say up to 10% ethanol/dont specify. I dont like the idea of ethanol but doubt it makes a difference in mileage on a tank at an up to 10% ratio.
_________________________
2007 Corolla Red Pearl 125,000 miles
50/50 Redline/Pennz Plat 5w30/ Fram TG filter
Next: M1 EP 0w20 & TRD filter


Top
#3048063 - 06/28/13 07:55 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SrDriver Offline


Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 2440
Loc: Southeast Alabama
I use whatever octane that the owners manual recommends. There are a couple of stations that in town that sell 100% gasoline but at a premium cost.

As far as mileage goes paying the extra price is simply not worth it in my opinion.

Keeping vehicle in tune. Keeping tires properly inflated. Adjusting driving some will = fuel savings.

Top
#3048082 - 06/28/13 08:25 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Cujet Online   content


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4133
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
Remember that "if" the gas actually contains 10% ethanol (my local gas contains somewhat less by my tests 4% to 7% lately) , the gas has 3% less energy content. This means that MPG will be reduced by about 3%. If you get 33MPG, you can expect to lose about 1 mile per gallon at 10% ethanol.

However, locally the gas is well less than 10% ethanol, and MPG loss is very minimal. On the order of 0.5MPG.

We have local 100% gas (90 octane) station and I can't measure any MPG improvement while using the ethanol free gas.

That's all well and good. But here is what's interesting to me. The 100% gas has been having problems with water separating out! Causing rough running and occasional fuel starvation in my equipment. Yes, we had a lot of rain lately. And I suspect the station got a touch of water in the tank.

No problems with normal pump fuels. And, when I switched back to fuel with ethanol, the water was absorbed and problems went away.
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3048089 - 06/28/13 08:36 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4201
Loc: Michigan
It's not an issue of octane. It's an issue of energy content.
Ethanol has an energy content of 26.8 MJ/kg.
Gasoline has an energy content of 43 MJ/kg.
So if you put ethanol in gasoline, the mixture will contain less energy than pure gasoline.
In the case of E10, the energy content would be 41.4 MJ/kg, or about 4% less than pure gasoline. Maybe you wouldn't notice a difference in fuel economy with this relatively small decrease in energy. But in a car that gets 25 mpg on pure gasoline, you would get 24 mpg on E10.
In the case of E85, the energy content would be 29.2 MJ/kg, or about 32% less than gasoline. You would definitely notice a decrease in fuel economy with this mix. This is why I say people shouldn't pay more than 70% of the price of gas to buy E85. In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#3048126 - 06/28/13 09:23 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
FZ1 Offline


Registered: 02/07/08
Posts: 4192
Loc: Texas
10-15% loss of mpg when got E10,down here.

Top
#3048128 - 06/28/13 09:26 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
dparm Online   content


Registered: 04/19/10
Posts: 12508
Loc: Chicago, IL
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
_________________________
2011.5 BMW M3 saloon ZCP
der stärkste buchstabe der welt
Castrol Edge Professional TWS 10w60 + Mahle OX 254D3

Top
#3048168 - 06/28/13 10:11 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 2929
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: PhillyJoe
Would you be mad if the bartender added 10% water to your 12 year old scotch?
Your car feels the same way.


I sure hope my fuel is not 12 years old! But I am in complete agreement.

Our fleet trucks take a big hit on 10% corn liquor, my car actually likes it for KR values but still costs me more as the mileage goes down with it.

Ever see the carb jet sizes in an alcohol fueled car at the strip? Some of the fuel pumps are like a commercial well on a farm! Takes a lot of liquor to make it work.

let's burn all our food as fuel and save the world...

+1 And it will be a hungry world we save, but the "green weenies" want fewer people anyway.

Top
#3048169 - 06/28/13 10:12 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: dparm]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 2929
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?

Top
#3048171 - 06/28/13 10:14 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: A_Harman]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 2929
Loc: Boston, MA
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
It's not an issue of octane. It's an issue of energy content.
Ethanol has an energy content of 26.8 MJ/kg.
Gasoline has an energy content of 43 MJ/kg.
So if you put ethanol in gasoline, the mixture will contain less energy than pure gasoline.
In the case of E10, the energy content would be 41.4 MJ/kg, or about 4% less than pure gasoline. Maybe you wouldn't notice a difference in fuel economy with this relatively small decrease in energy. But in a car that gets 25 mpg on pure gasoline, you would get 24 mpg on E10.
In the case of E85, the energy content would be 29.2 MJ/kg, or about 32% less than gasoline. You would definitely notice a decrease in fuel economy with this mix. This is why I say people shouldn't pay more than 70% of the price of gas to buy E85. In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.
And just think of the money we spend on fuel stabilization...helps the economy, too! smile

Top
#3049038 - 06/29/13 05:03 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
markum Offline


Registered: 02/02/09
Posts: 52
Loc: seattle,wa
Thanks for everyones insight. Since there is a pretty widespread difference in price, I think I'm sticking with Chevron 10% for now. I do track mileage religiously and will monitor for changes.

Thanks again all.
_________________________
2008 Dodge Charger SRT-8
2010 Dodge Ram 2500 6.7
1997 Toyota Camry 2.2 (totaled @ 366k)
2012 Hyundai Veracruz AWD
2000 Toyota Corolla

Top
#3049068 - 06/29/13 06:37 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: A_Harman]
Hermann Offline


Registered: 08/10/05
Posts: 2342
Loc: Kansas City
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.


That is why ethanol is the biggest farce ever unleashed upon America. Food for fuel, stupid. Plus it is wasting billions of gallons of water.
_________________________
2008 Tacoma SR-5 Access Cab I-4 5-speed manual - 5w-30 Quaker State GB - Purolator PL10241 YCOD
1991 BMW R100GS 20w-50 Maxlife & Mahle OX36D filter

Top
#3049125 - 06/29/13 08:03 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: HerrStig]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?


That's a great question! I assume he means any OBDII vehicle...?

In our fleet the ethanol cost us more than the math would indicate. My car also took a bigger than expected hit, but I have a handheld tuner and adjusted my mixture and timing values to work properly with liquor added.

The Farm Lobby must be proud. I read here where it only cost them 33 million to push it through, and the returns have been HUGE for them. Just another example of how big money gets the perks.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3056916 - 07/07/13 12:29 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Hermann]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: Hermann
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
In all years that E85 has been out, I've never seen it priced that low.


That is why ethanol is the biggest farce ever unleashed upon America. Food for fuel, stupid. Plus it is wasting billions of gallons of water.


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3056972 - 07/07/13 05:26 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3057177 - 07/07/13 11:24 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: HerrStig]
JANDSZIRKLE Offline


Registered: 06/08/13
Posts: 237
Loc: Shenandoah Valley
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: dparm
Modern cars are tuned to run on gas containing up to 10% ethanol, FYI.
What's a "modern" car?


would like too know this too,not meaning too have a heated debate, just curious what the experts consider a modern vehicle.

i do know our two beaters, a 94 and 98 get slightly better mileage with the non ethanol gas and sound quieter too. 100% gas is same price as premium where i live.

Top
#3057358 - 07/07/13 03:55 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link


I take it you ACTUALLY read the abstract portion of the article? Seems from that alone that starch absorbtion is a problem. The Abstract promote the idea the corn must be processed in one of many ways, including fermentation, to increase digestion. The abstract also mentions how starches are not absorbed in the small intestine tract. Unprocessed corn can cause digestional distress, like the abstract stated. That is why DDG is in such demand. It is a high lysine product that REDUCES the problems of digestion in livestock. Seems like the article did not support much of your contention. Here is an excerpt from page 118 of the article you reference that support my contention....

Grinding grain to a very fine particle size will increase starch digestibility. However, benefits in starch digestion from fine grinding are CONSIDERABLY LESS than those obtained from FERMENTATION or heat processing. (emphasis mine)

As for what starches are used by livestock, are better supplied and digested thru roughage such as silage and legume crops such as alfalfa and clover. The NATURAL sources of starches for ruminants. It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.

_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3057435 - 07/07/13 05:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.

Yep. As I've mentioned before, up here, our ethanol production is based upon feed grade grain (non-food wheat) that's used for fermentation and then diverted to silage for cattle.

I prefer and tend to use pure gas, but, as I've also mentioned before, ethanol blended fuels can and have stood on their own legs before. Regulations made things worse, not better.

A company called Husky/Mohawk up here has sold E-10 for at least twenty years, long before any regulations came about. Regular 87 was pure gas. Midgrade 89 was ethanol blended (E-10 or less) and at the same price as regular. I assure you that their model worked very well for them. When the government mandated ethanol minimums, the midgrade got its own higher price tier.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3058650 - 07/08/13 07:08 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
JOD Offline


Registered: 09/10/09
Posts: 3135
Loc: PNW/WA
The Grange in Issaquah has 100% gas. I like to support them, and I get my dog food there--so I always fill up when I'm there. I've tried like crazy to discern a difference in fuel economy. While I know it *should* be better, the difference must be so small that I can't tell. Maybe it's different with older cars.

I still fill up there when I get dog food, but I wouldn't go out of my way unless you like supporting your local Cenex guy for some particular reason.

Top
#3065310 - 07/14/13 05:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
OriginHacker21 Offline


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 2132
Loc: High Desert, California
I had the opportunity to test Ethanol vs no-Ethanol recently. I live in California (Victorville/Los Angeles) and all our gas is E-10 if I'm not mistaken. I drove to Iowa a few weeks ago and they have 87 normal gas and 89 Ethanol (E10) gas which is usually 20 cents cheaper than 87 normal gas.

My 2013 Honda Civic got noticeably less mpg on the 89 E10 gas than the 87 gas - almost 5mpg worse. And I drove the same route every day (2 hours/day) so it was a pretty good comparison.

So $2/tank ($.20/gal cheaper) for 50 miles less? The difference wasn't enough to make me stop using 89 E10. So I spent my time trying to feel (butt dyno) if 89 E10 felt better than 87 but... I could not tell the difference in my engine. So I just ran 89 E10 most of my 1.5 weeks in Iowa.

Saw a lot more stations selling 85 Octane than I remembered (Utah, Colorado, Nebraska) last time I drove to Iowa (9 years ago).

Edit: I'll readily admit that the mpg difference could have been caused by other factors (wind, deer jumping in front of me, etc...).


Edited by OriginHacker21 (07/14/13 05:31 PM)
_________________________
--
2013 Honda Civic

Top
#3066451 - 07/15/13 07:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: OriginHacker21]
JOD Offline


Registered: 09/10/09
Posts: 3135
Loc: PNW/WA
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.

Top
#3066479 - 07/15/13 07:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Panzerman Offline


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 2483
Loc: Daytona, Florida
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol. I bought the E85 in Gainesville for my company truck which is approved. Has the little Green leaf, doo hickey on the tailgate. A 2011 Ford f-150. I lost 3 mpg and it never came back, I was getting 17 to 18, before the E85. I am getting 15.3 mile to the gallon with just regular gas. Not to mention, the truck ran awful. But hey, if I didn't do it, I couldn't complain. Our fine Governor just repealed the E10 in our state and its no longer required at the pumps in Florida. I am hoping to see regular gas return.

Top
#3066677 - 07/15/13 11:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Panzerman]
OriginHacker21 Offline


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 2132
Loc: High Desert, California
Originally Posted By: JOD
5mpg is a pretty massive difference. I have to wonder if the "E10" you got didn't have a significantly higher ethanol content than advertised.


Was thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
First of all, I would never believe anyone from Iowa about Ethanol.


Agreed 100% especially if they are a corn farmer - which most of them are.
_________________________
--
2013 Honda Civic

Top
#3068543 - 07/17/13 08:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
oldhp Offline


Registered: 06/28/12
Posts: 794
Loc: Southern Illinois
If ethanol is so good, why is it "still" government subsidized???
At the tune of about 43 cents per gallon of ethanol. That's yours and my tax dollars going to ethanol plants. I wonder who owns the most stock???
_________________________
2014 Silverado LT 4.3 work truck.
2012 Equinox 2.4-Wife's Ride


Top
#3177745 - 11/04/13 01:14 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
901Memphis Online   content


Registered: 08/14/10
Posts: 5559
Loc: Northern Kentucky
Why hasn't the corrosion issue came up yet? Pure gas is better for your whole fuel system.
_________________________
1999 Ford Taurus 145k (Vulcan v6) - M1 High Mileage 5w30 | Fram Ultra XG 3600
2002 Buick Century 102k - PU 5w30 / Fram Ultra XG 3980 / Filter mag

Top
#3179003 - 11/05/13 08:57 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
tig1 Offline


Registered: 01/03/09
Posts: 9806
Loc: Illinois
I've been using E10 for at least 18 years here in Illinois. All of my engines have run fine,(including OPE) no iceing problems in winter, and no fuel system problems.
_________________________
2007 Ford Fusion 142,000 miles
M1 0-20
2007 Ford Focus 128,000 miles
M1 0-20
10,000 mile OCIs on both engines
M1 ATF
M1 10-30 in all OPE

Top
#3180934 - 11/07/13 02:02 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker


The biggest "farce" is the idea that the food supply is diminished due to biofuel production.

Sad I have to repeat this again.... and you can check all this out for yourself.

80% of the total US corn production is used for livestock feed. Also, of the total US corn production, 40% is used for ethanol production. The human consumption portion of the total corn production is NOT AFFECTED!

Of the corn that is fed to livestock, most of the starches in the corn just pass thru. Cattle use the lysine from the corn and do not digest the starches. The starches, are what is used for ethanol production. So..... why not use some of the corn production for ethanol and use the resulting Dried Distillers Grain, which is primarily lysine based protein that livestock can actually use, in livestock production. This reduces feedlot runoff wastes and provides a fuel for automotive use. There is no "waste", but in fact, there is greater utilization of the nation's corn production.

It does not "waste" billions of gallons of water. True, it uses a large amount of water, but most of it is recycled, and what does get evaporated into the atmosphere just returns to the normal water cycle that has gone on since the world began. Seems some think that the water used in biofuel production is forever lost. Sad the public school system did such a lousy job.

More false information. Cows can and do digest starch from corn.

Link


I take it you ACTUALLY read the abstract portion of the article? Seems from that alone that starch absorbtion is a problem. The Abstract promote the idea the corn must be processed in one of many ways, including fermentation, to increase digestion. The abstract also mentions how starches are not absorbed in the small intestine tract. Unprocessed corn can cause digestional distress, like the abstract stated. That is why DDG is in such demand. It is a high lysine product that REDUCES the problems of digestion in livestock. Seems like the article did not support much of your contention. Here is an excerpt from page 118 of the article you reference that support my contention....

Grinding grain to a very fine particle size will increase starch digestibility. However, benefits in starch digestion from fine grinding are CONSIDERABLY LESS than those obtained from FERMENTATION or heat processing. (emphasis mine)

As for what starches are used by livestock, are better supplied and digested thru roughage such as silage and legume crops such as alfalfa and clover. The NATURAL sources of starches for ruminants. It is because of this fact, that feeds for livestock are a mixture of silage, legumes, and grain products.


Cattle should eat grass, not grains...not fermented grains, not returned bread loaves.

This rubbish about non human food grains not affecting the food supply is exactly rubbish, because either requires space. Space diverted to growing non-food is space that used to be used to grow food is a reduction in human food supplies.

Grain feeding cattle is what gives the vegetarian extremists the ammunition on how inefficient the process is.

Top
#3263553 - 01/29/14 09:04 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
But you seem to think that the amount of grain produced remains static. You can only have a loss to any group, if there is not enough being produced to support that group along with another. Grain production has eclipsed all time records. There is more than enough grain for all concerns. And also, it pretends that there is no other use to the same kernel of corn once it has been directed to ethanol production. The plants that make ethanol from that corn also produce corn oil, DDG, and a laundry list of byproducts from that same kernel of corn. Nothing is wasted.

And I would check with the ag extension service of your state university. These are the folks who's task is to study all the livestock issues. Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) is a very beneficial product for livestock. It reduces the risks of intestinal colitis substantially, it provides a high level of protein and nutrients that is very digestible compared to other methods. You really have very little familiarity with what livestock actually eat, and what is beneficial to them. Me thinks ye have an agenda.

I am reminded of a thing John Wayne said in the movie "Mclintock". Pertaining to policiticans, he said, "They think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". If you actually grew up and lived around these ruminants, you might have a different outlook on what they should or should not eat.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3263566 - 01/29/14 09:16 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: 901Memphis]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Why hasn't the corrosion issue came up yet? Pure gas is better for your whole fuel system.


Probably the reason that it hasn't come up, is that there is a standing reward out for documented evidence of ethanol causing harm to fuel systems and engines, and no one has been able to produce the evidence and collect the reward. Oh sure, you hear anecdotal stories of this, but when the details have come to light, it was usually the fault of the owner not properly filling the tanks, storing fuel improperly, leaving fuel sit in a tank or carburetor for a couple of years, the ethanol cleaning out the crud in a fuel tank on an older vehicle that never got a dose of ethanol with a subsequent filter clogging issue, etc.

The only time ethanol is corrosive, is when mixed with water. If you have high volumes of water in your fuel tank, you have other issues than the ethanol. I have seen several engine and fuel system tear downs on vehicles that got a study diet of E85. Anywhere from 2 years to over 100,000 miles. And I have yet to see any negative effects, but have seen some very positive ones.

But feel free to think that the corrosion issue is as bad as you think. If you can document a case where ethanol was the culprit, then by all means, call you state ethanol producers and see if you can get that reward that is out there. I want someone to win it, if nothing else, so that we can find out once and for all if this is all true.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3265060 - 01/30/14 04:56 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
There are a few places like Florida where I guess E10 is a new thing. Living in more progressive places like Louisiana, Colorado and Massachusetts, I've been putting it in my vette for 30 years and am still waiting for the corrosion to begin and fuel lines to disintegrate. This latest round of chicken little's crying and throwing fits is getting tiresome.

Ethanol is sold in many gas additives such as gas drier. It's an octane booster, gas dryer, and fuel system cleaner for free.

What's to complain about?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3266812 - 02/01/14 12:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
I think that most people who have such a disdain for ethanol actually developed that because of government shoving it at them. If it had been purely market driven, then the hue and cry might not have been so loud.

Many of us have used various ethanol blends for several decades with no problems. Sure, there are occasional problems, primarily because of someone's goof in how they stored it or something. And when you combine the forcing thing by the government and the few instances of screwups that caused problems, you have fertile ground for the conspiracy folks to plant seeds of discontent about ethanol.

Don't expect these ideas to die off anytime soon. And have no problem with folks hating ethanol. I use E85 and that leaves a better market price for me.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3267135 - 02/01/14 06:08 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
outdoorsman310 Offline


Registered: 08/26/13
Posts: 113
Loc: DE
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
I think that most people who have such a disdain for ethanol actually developed that because of government shoving it at them. If it had been purely market driven, then the hue and cry might not have been so loud.

Many of us have used various ethanol blends for several decades with no problems. Sure, there are occasional problems, primarily because of someone's goof in how they stored it or something. And when you combine the forcing thing by the government and the few instances of screwups that caused problems, you have fertile ground for the conspiracy folks to plant seeds of discontent about ethanol.

Don't expect these ideas to die off anytime soon. And have no problem with folks hating ethanol. I use E85 and that leaves a better market price for me.


It would not be market driven because while most people getting gas do not know about the effects of ethanol in fuel, americans like to keep old ways and not change.

Ethanol has pros and cons like anything else. I will start with positive aspects.
ethanol can, and will decrease tailpipe emissions on engines tuned properly for it. This is because it has oxygen in it and allows more complete combustion of fuel. Ethanol can also decrease combustion chamber temps because alcohol can burn much richer air/fuel mixtures than gas. If this does not make sense, think of spraying water, oil, gas whatever onto a hot piece of metal. while it may combust, the cold liquid will cool the piece of metal. The ability to burn more fuel more completely allows more power to be made. At a ratio of about 10% ethanol to 90%gasoline, the ethanol increases the octane rating, allowing refiners to use ethanol instead of more harmful chemicals like benzene from fuel, allows more complete combustion, allows more power to be made, can mix with a small amount of water from the fuel system, and makes people supplying crops and ethanol producers happy.

Here are some disadvantageous aspects of ethanol in fuel. Ethanol can absorb moisture from the air beyond the capacity of keeping the water in suspension. This can cause water droplets at the bottom of the fuel tank, lines, and carburetor bowl. Since ethanol oxygenates the fuel, the water can and will eat away at metal in the fuel systems. this causes problems from a hole in the tank, to a corroded and useless carburetor or fuel pump. gasohol has a shorter shelf life than straight gasoline. this can cause fuel system problems in seldom used vehicles and equipment. Ethanol is a very poor lubricant, even diluting lubricants in a 2 stroke crankcase and impeding the lubricating ability of gasoline to a point. Now when you have a vehicle or piece of equipment that is not designed or tuned for gasohol, you can have fuel system problems including certain rubbers or polymers degrade, leaking fuel and causing improper operation, unsafe situations, and spilled fuel that evaporates and is a harsh pollutant. Gasohol needs to be run at a richer fuel/air ratio than straight gas.this results in increased fuel consumption, and can cause higher combustion temperatures that can increase emissions. most people don't tune carbureted things for gasohol so they may run poorly, getting poor fuel economy and poor emissions.
people that grow corn and other crops for ethanol production may decide to just grow corn and not rotate other crops. This leads to soil deprivation and an increased use of fertilizers. when the fertilizer gets washed away from many farms, it enters waterways and can encourage huge growths of algae that blocks light from organisms below. they can die and create co2. The algae will die and create huge amounts of co2 killing fish and damaging ecosystems. crops must be transported to ethanol fermenting facilities. this causes pollution. the facility uses a large amount of power creating more pollution, the fermentation produces waste, and the ethanol must be transported to be mixed with gas.
people will get decreased mileage with gasohol than with gasoline. resulting in increased use of fuel.

I believe that gasohol can be helpful to air quality in select areas of california where exhaust gases are trapped over cities. The vehicles would need to be tuned properly for gasohol. This could increase the air quality of certain areas. However over an entire country, the negative environmental and engine problems caused by gasohol outweigh the positive aspects of gasohol. I believe that automakers should work with oil companies to create more efficient, and durable engines that do not use ethanol.
Eric

Top
#3267279 - 02/01/14 08:35 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: outdoorsman310]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: outdoorsman310

Here are some disadvantageous aspects of ethanol in fuel. Ethanol can absorb moisture from the air beyond the capacity of keeping the water in suspension. This can cause water droplets at the bottom of the fuel tank, lines, and carburetor bowl. Since ethanol oxygenates the fuel, the water can and will eat away at metal in the fuel systems. this causes problems from a hole in the tank, to a corroded and useless carburetor or fuel pump. gasohol has a shorter shelf life than straight gasoline. this can cause fuel system problems in seldom used vehicles and equipment. Ethanol is a very poor lubricant, even diluting lubricants in a 2 stroke crankcase and impeding the lubricating ability of gasoline to a point. Now when you have a vehicle or piece of equipment that is not designed or tuned for gasohol, you can have fuel system problems including certain rubbers or polymers degrade, leaking fuel and causing improper operation, unsafe situations, and spilled fuel that evaporates and is a harsh pollutant. Gasohol needs to be run at a richer fuel/air ratio than straight gas.this results in increased fuel consumption, and can cause higher combustion temperatures that can increase emissions. most people don't tune carbureted things for gasohol so they may run poorly, getting poor fuel economy and poor emissions.
people that grow corn and other crops for ethanol production may decide to just grow corn and not rotate other crops. This leads to soil deprivation and an increased use of fertilizers. when the fertilizer gets washed away from many farms, it enters waterways and can encourage huge growths of algae that blocks light from organisms below. they can die and create co2. The algae will die and create huge amounts of co2 killing fish and damaging ecosystems. crops must be transported to ethanol fermenting facilities. this causes pollution. the facility uses a large amount of power creating more pollution, the fermentation produces waste, and the ethanol must be transported to be mixed with gas.
people will get decreased mileage with gasohol than with gasoline. resulting in increased use of fuel.

I believe that gasohol can be helpful to air quality in select areas of california where exhaust gases are trapped over cities. The vehicles would need to be tuned properly for gasohol. This could increase the air quality of certain areas. However over an entire country, the negative environmental and engine problems caused by gasohol outweigh the positive aspects of gasohol. I believe that automakers should work with oil companies to create more efficient, and durable engines that do not use ethanol.
Eric


All of the above is fear mongering old wives tales.

Do you understand that most of the country has been using 10% ethanol in gas for a very long time? If the problems were as bad as that something would have changed long ago.

Who is buying this stuff?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3267542 - 02/02/14 06:11 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
All of his points are valid, just outdated.

No one mentioned aldehydes.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3267608 - 02/02/14 07:53 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
outdoorsman310 Offline


Registered: 08/26/13
Posts: 113
Loc: DE
these are all possible but with regular use and maintenance, you shouldn't experience many problems with ethanol fuel besides reduced mileage.

Top
#3267642 - 02/02/14 08:27 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
All of the above is fear mongering old wives tales.

Do you understand that most of the country has been using 10% ethanol in gas for a very long time? If the problems were as bad as that something would have changed long ago.

Who is buying this stuff?
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3267767 - 02/02/14 09:58 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
outdoorsman310 Offline


Registered: 08/26/13
Posts: 113
Loc: DE
it is to displace other octane increasers, and an attempt to decrease certain tailpipe emissions. it kinda works in practice on some vehicles but imo, it does more harm than good if you look at the big picture.

Top
#3267929 - 02/02/14 12:32 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
All of his points are valid, just outdated.

No one mentioned aldehydes.


Aldehydes are in just about every fruit and vegetable you eat also. Aldehydes occur throughout nature, though I will concede, that they are also a byproduct of ethanol combustion process. But they do break down. They are only a "possible" carcinogen. There is no definitive proof that in the atmospheric concentrations that would be typical of auto emissions, that there is a detrimental effect on people. And one has to balance what is perceived to be a problem from their formation, in relation to the increased other problems from burning petrol based fuels only.

In short, tit for tat.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3267940 - 02/02/14 12:44 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



I can, at least for my situation. It is cheaper, on a per mile use basis, to use E85 in my vehicle. It leaves less residues and buildups in the fuel system and engine. E85 burns cooler, and produces more hp and torque in the 5.3L engine in my Silverado, according to the official GM power curve charts, substantiated in independent dyno testing. Approximately 12 hp increase and 10 lb torque increase with stock tuning. And for those that like to custom tune their ECM's, you can really pull out some performance and substantial fuel economy over stock tunes using E85. Just a quick look at the the more performance oriented forums for Camaro's, Corvette's, etc substantiate that.

I concede that no one "needs" to use it. But some of us actually prefer to use it. I am not for any government imposed mandates and such, but I definitely prefer using the stuff. It has nothing to do with oil shortage. I am not convinced that any major push has been in that regard. It has been common knowledge that the only reason for an oil import situation is that we are not allowed to retrieve the oil we already have here. And that ethanol production would never displace all the gasoline needed by this country. But there is a strong case that as an oxygenate, cleaning agent, and emissions reduction, it does have a place. How much each of those things is important is relative, but they are proven. And it is biodegradable as opposed to petrol based fuels.

I actually take a somewhat opposite position on all of this. Why would I want to use substandard gasoline only products only, that require regular detergents and other additives to prevent gumming, residues, carbon buildup, etc when I have a better fuel available? Todays engines and fuel systems are not the ones I had available in the 60's and 70's. Technology has changed and I like using a fuel that is readily available in my area at lower cost and has benefits over gasoline only.

Those that have other views... cool. At least we still have some choices.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3268317 - 02/02/14 05:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3269073 - 02/03/14 11:46 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?



Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.




Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3269371 - 02/03/14 04:49 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: hatt
Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.


From the study the oil companies paid to that college professor. You still want to hang your hat on that one?

If it were true it would be uneconomical to produce.

The government is evil for mandating ethanol in gasoline? Like they were when mandating the end of lead in gas? Whatever. I trust the government more than I trust oil companies. But I guess that sentiment is not prevalent south of the mason Dixon line with a black president at the helm.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3269588 - 02/03/14 08:48 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt

Of course you're aware we use much diesel to produce that ethanol? We aren't saving much, if any, oil.


Ok, I'll bite. How are we using as much diesel to produce ethanol? I am surrounded by over 40+ ethanol plants and I could be missing something, but I see some fairly large ethanol storage tanks, and I have yet to see one diesel storage tank at those plants that even compares.

Maybe you are inferring about the farming operations. Well that would be a stretch. Many are using low till or no till farming methods and have been for sometime. We us no till methods on the farms around me, and ours. Now, lets take the number of 420 gallons of ethanol per acre of ethanol production per the 2014 Biofuels guide. We make 2 passes over a corn field in one year, once to plant and once to harvest. Again, we use no till, so there is no trips over the field to turn over the soil and such. I can attest quite confidently, that if we used even 20 gallons per acre, per year, of diesel, we had better look into new equipment. Even a low till operation, that would include another pass over the field isn't going to use 20 gallons per acre either.

So, where is the other 400+ gallons of diesel being used? Can't be with the trucks. A typical grain truck carries the equivalent of 4 acres or more (depending on the per acre yield) of corn in one trip, usually no more than 25 miles, on average. At 6 mpg, that uses shy of 5 gallons, or a little over a gallon per acre. Ok, now we are up to 21-22 gallons total, and I am being very liberal with the number or gallons used. They are usually less.

Maybe the plant itself is using diesel to do the ethanol processing. Not likely. That would be pretty inefficient as best. Gotta go with NG on that one. At least the plants in my area are not so inefficient to use diesel for processing.

I must be missing something. Would you care to enlighten us on how it takes as much diesel to make the same volume of ethanol?
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3269815 - 02/04/14 04:33 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
TT, how do the plants get their heat? That's not geothermal, eh? Doesn't NG have a cost?

The fact is it does require other fuels to produce the ethanol.

What about pumping? Maybe electrical?


Edited by SteveSRT8 (02/04/14 04:34 AM)
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3269988 - 02/04/14 09:29 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
A whole lot of stuff being left out. How'd the tractors get to the farm? How'd the guy get to the farm to work on the tractor? How'd the parts get there? Building the tractor? How'd the fertilizer get to the farm? How was it made? Herbicide? Goes on and on and on and on.

And it's convenient to leave out the NG and coal used in the ethanol production. You know we can burn the NG in vehicles too? It's not some waste product, it has to be accounted for.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3270059 - 02/04/14 11:00 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
Meh, when we get low on oil I will listen. At least you're not trying to argue that we are now.

The '70s "crisis" was not due to a crude shortage. Our "ace in the hole" is all the oil we do have in this country.

I guess I'm just not a true believer in the Religion of Ethanol, sorry.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Can you explain why we need to use it though? Are we short on oil?

Do you want to wait until we are? Do you want to repeat the oil crisis we had in the 70's.

Having another choice is our ace in the hole and part of the free enterprise system.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3270183 - 02/04/14 01:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: hatt
A whole lot of stuff being left out. How'd the tractors get to the farm? How'd the guy get to the farm to work on the tractor? How'd the parts get there? Building the tractor? How'd the fertilizer get to the farm? How was it made? Herbicide? Goes on and on and on and on.

And it's convenient to leave out the NG and coal used in the ethanol production. You know we can burn the NG in vehicles too? It's not some waste product, it has to be accounted for.


Yea but to compare apples to apples....I mean do you think nasty black crude oil jumps out of the ground and purifies itself?

You have the energy to pump it out of the ground. Many times water or steam has to be pumped into the ground to force it out. That ain't cheap anymore. Then you have the whole fracking thing. None of this stuff is environmental. Every day it gets harder and harder to get the oil/gas out of the ground. They're talking about the tar sands trash oil they want to send us from CA.

Pipelines need to be built for the crude. It has to be refined by heating it up to high temps to separate out the good stuff. That takes a lot of energy, yes NG. I could argue more than the energy needed to distil ethanol.

The final product still needs to be transported.

So you have energy required for all 3 phases of gasoline/ethanol production.
1. transporting raw product
2. refining/distilling product
3. transporting product to final distribution

It could be argued its all a wash. And as oil and gas gets harder to get to, the ethanol model will be less energy intensive than the gasoline.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3270190 - 02/04/14 01:30 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3270211 - 02/04/14 01:40 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.


It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the oil lobby.

I wonder which has more money and power?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3270214 - 02/04/14 01:42 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Typical evasion. No answer on the real question, just a comparison.

It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the corn lobby.


It certainly could be a wash. Especially if we just regurgitate the standard talking points from the oil lobby.

I wonder which has more money and power?


Raising the oil lobby is only a legitimate response once the ORIGINAL questions are answered. Otherwise it's just more evasion.

Congrats. You are now ready to excel in politics!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3270225 - 02/04/14 01:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

Raising the oil lobby is only a legitimate response once the ORIGINAL questions are answered. Otherwise it's just more evasion.

Congrats. You are now ready to excel in politics!




I make logical arguments and try and help people understand. Am I out of order?

This is not a high school debate club.

Bottom line, there is a competitive product the old school hard liners reject. The arguments are getting more desperate and ridiculous.

We're all going to give up clean air and energy security because it might mess up your string trimmer?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3270306 - 02/04/14 02:40 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
LMAO! So the opposition is because the old school, hard-liners just won't see the light like you have, and come up to speed? It has nothing to do with economics, or science? Some people are just sticks in the mud, eh? And not only that, by our oppostion we are promoting energy insecurity and dirty air? Classic.

Hmm, reminds me of another topic that we can't discuss.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Bottom line, there is a competitive product the old school hard liners reject. The arguments are getting more desperate and ridiculous.

We're all going to give up clean air and energy security because it might mess up your string trimmer?
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3270323 - 02/04/14 02:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
That line smacks of elitism at its finest.

"We know what's best for you."

So just shut up and sit down, eh? Fine with me, I had no axe to grind, but my original questions have NEVER been answered, just deflected, ridiculed, etc. Standard procedure for the self declared protectors of the environment.

Where are you Tired Trucker? At least you've got some spine, and stand up to a question or two from us "Old School Hard Liners". That actually made me laugh!

The only reason ethanol was ever added to our fuel was special interests (corn lobby) pushed it in our legislative branch. They spent a paltry 30 million or so and made hundreds of millions the first year! Following the money is a great way to see the real reasons things get done. Now that there is some momentum we are supposed to imagine our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, everything is just BETTER with ethanol.

Obviously not everyone agrees. I say it should have been implemented in response to the demands of motorists, not corn farmers...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3270384 - 02/04/14 03:40 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
That line smacks of elitism at its finest.

"We know what's best for you."


Regulation is elitism? Most of you OSHLs don't think the EPA should exist.

If wanting to breath clean air and drink clean water is elitism, sign me up.

I'm not exactly a Prius driving ultra leftist. I'm not even a greenie weenie. As a gearhead who tinkers with cars, I'd just like to be able to get my hands on some local E85 fuel. It's frustrating you OSHL's are trying to kill the whole thing.

In the end, I predict the hot rodding industry will promote alternative fuels once they realize it's cheap racing gas.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3270616 - 02/04/14 06:55 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
Yep, drag out the "you want to breathe (fixed that for you) dirty air and want to drink dirty water if you oppose my way of thinking" lines. Happens every time. You try and shame those who dare to disagree into conforming to your beliefs, or call us stupid or uninformed.

Good use of an acronym there.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Regulation is elitism? Most of you OSHLs don't think the EPA should exist.

If wanting to breath clean air and drink clean water is elitism, sign me up.

I'm not exactly a Prius driving ultra leftist. I'm not even a greenie weenie. As a gearhead who tinkers with cars, I'd just like to be able to get my hands on some local E85 fuel. It's frustrating you OSHL's are trying to kill the whole thing.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3270688 - 02/04/14 07:58 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
A whole lot of stuff being left out. How'd the tractors get to the farm? How'd the guy get to the farm to work on the tractor? How'd the parts get there? Building the tractor? How'd the fertilizer get to the farm? How was it made? Herbicide? Goes on and on and on and on.

And it's convenient to leave out the NG and coal used in the ethanol production. You know we can burn the NG in vehicles too? It's not some waste product, it has to be accounted for.


Somewhat valid points, but myopic. Those tractors getting to the farm are not just doing corn. Ever hear of crop rotation? Soybeans, Alfalfa, Oats, Wheat, etc. See, those that have a limited view of the dynamics of agriculture should really take the time to broaden their education. Whether anyone was making ethanol out of corn, sugar beets, or whatever really has nothing to do with your argument. That equipment and implements would still be used. Y'all must think that since ethanol started being made from corn, that is when John Deere started making tractors, or anhydrous ammonia wasn't considered for crop production before ethanol, or that equipment never broke down and needed parts before ethanol. And all of the stuff that you mention, even if ethanol and biodiesel were not even figured out yet, those things would still be used. And something that a lot of people overlook on the fertilizer scene.... all that stored waste from hog production and cattle feed lots? Well, it gets knifed in the crop land as a nitrogen rich fertilizer. Again, in agriculture, nothing is wasted.

And let's delve a little deeper. What is the average length of time the typical tractor stays on a particular farm? Many times, up to 2 decades or more. Implements, even longer. That spreads the cost out over those acres pretty good. We still wouldn't get to the 420 gallons per acre per year that is the current average amount of ethanol produced per acre. It isn't like there is a new tractor being brought in every year, by every farm, to produce the corn for ethanol.

Granted, this is not a perfect world we live in. But this idea that ethanol uses as much or more energy than it gives back has been debunked a long time ago. At minimum, it provides 27-30% more energy outlay than all the input to produce it. Many biofuel producers are claiming a 50% advantage for ethanol. We can stick with the lower number and I would be fine. And when you look at the "greenie" side of the equation, ethanol is almost GHG neutral when evaluated over the entire production and use cycle.

Oh, and I didn't leave out NG in the discussion. Go back and re-read my posts. And I am all for NG fuels in autos. And propane as well! I want it all! I want wind, solar, nuclear, ethanol, butanol, NG, biodiesel, petroleum fuels, coal, hydroelectric, etc. I want us all to have a broad based selection of products from which to use. Whatever offers people the best value for their needs. Only government and myopic fools want to restrict things.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3271046 - 02/05/14 08:25 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
That 30% comes at the cost of millions of acres of farmland diverted from food production and billions of gallons of water, etc.


Quote:
Producers Panic as Ethanol Mandate Loses Support

Quote:
Beyond that, poultry companies are going bankrupt due to rising prices of feedstock as crops are diverted to ethanol. The rising costs of farming and egg production are taking their toll on states like Minnesota.

On the other side of this divide we have the biofuels producers for whom uncertainty is rising fast as a resolution on the ethanol mandate looms. States like Iowa are leading the lobbying here because they have been reaping the benefits of all that demand for corn. This has come along with new jobs. Iowa will certainly baulk at the proposed cuts because the bulk of US biofuels are made from corn, with soybeans, grasses, crop waste and Brazilian sugarcane playing lesser roles.

Link
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3271944 - 02/05/14 10:16 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
That 30% comes at the cost of millions of acres of farmland diverted from food production and billions of gallons of water, etc.


Quote:
Producers Panic as Ethanol Mandate Loses Support

Quote:
Beyond that, poultry companies are going bankrupt due to rising prices of feedstock as crops are diverted to ethanol. The rising costs of farming and egg production are taking their toll on states like Minnesota.

On the other side of this divide we have the biofuels producers for whom uncertainty is rising fast as a resolution on the ethanol mandate looms. States like Iowa are leading the lobbying here because they have been reaping the benefits of all that demand for corn. This has come along with new jobs. Iowa will certainly baulk at the proposed cuts because the bulk of US biofuels are made from corn, with soybeans, grasses, crop waste and Brazilian sugarcane playing lesser roles.

Link


The U.S. corn production, nationwide, is at the highest level in U.S. history. Of that production, 20% is used for food. The remaining 80%, 40% of that is used for ethanol production. And that corn used for ethanol production, is also used to get corn oil, high lysine feed supplements for livestock, and a host of other products. Corn used for ethanol is not totally used for ethanol production. Only the sugars and starches from the corn. The remaining dried distillers grain is a high quality feed supplement in demand here and worldwide. Nothing is taken away from the livestock producers. Market corn prices, right now, are at the same level they were during the Bush Administration. Fact. Go online and check the spot market prices for corn, then and now.

So if the livestock folks are losing money, it is due to other factors and not ethanol. They still can buy all the corn they want, at the same price it was a decade ago. Matter of fact, corn prices being what they are, the corn growers are looking at break even cost of production spreads and very small profit margins.

Farmers will use the land for whatever brings the best bang for the buck of production. And corn just ain't it. And some nincompoops think that the same land is used over and over, year after year for corn production. It is rotated with other crops. Corn one year, soybeans the next. Or maybe Oats as a starter crop for alfalfa. Or maybe wheat. Then back to corn and cycle repeats. This stupid myopic nonsense about land being diverted from food to produce corn is spread by those that probably haven't even planted a garden, let alone dealt with ag production.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3272252 - 02/06/14 08:52 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
I see you've resorted to namecalling in order to justify your pet government/mega corp project.

I'm opposed to ethanol solely because of the mandate. If the free market wanted ethanol there'd be no problem. The fact that the ethanol industry needs the government to put guns to peoples heads and orders use of their product says everything I need to know about the product.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3272600 - 02/06/14 02:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: hatt
I see you've resorted to namecalling in order to justify your pet government/mega corp project.

I'm opposed to ethanol solely because of the mandate. If the free market wanted ethanol there'd be no problem. The fact that the ethanol industry needs the government to put guns to peoples heads and orders use of their product says everything I need to know about the product.


I feel exactly the same. No subsidies, no mandates. Allow the market to justify the program economically, just like any good product or service does.

The name calling is nuttin' new. They always do that when they can't win with facts or agree to disagree...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3273146 - 02/06/14 09:58 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
The EPA is behind the mandates, that is true, and I am against just about everything the EPA does, and there are no subsidies any more. Haven't been for over two years now, and that was at the request of the ethanol producers. Well, the name calling was accurate. If someone thinks that a chunk of crop land is just corn, corn, corn, corn year after year after year, then they are a nincompoop. No farming operation does that. They rotate crops as I mentioned. And from what I have read from some, it is quite clear they probably have never even set foot on a farm, let alone have any basic idea of what goes on with one. In the words of John Wayne in the movie "Mclintock"...... "they think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". Pretty much sums it up.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3273188 - 02/06/14 10:31 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I feel exactly the same. No subsidies, no mandates. Allow the market to justify the program economically, just like any good product or service does.

The name calling is nuttin' new. They always do that when they can't win with facts or agree to disagree...



The subsidies have gone away which I don't agree with. Sometimes its the only way to get a technology in its infancy going. Would you support a subsidy for Fusion power? Is there anything that should ever get a break?

Yep, 10 or 15% ethanol in all gas is a mandate. The same way unleaded gas was and your type said that would be the end of the world. We made the switch with hardly any problems at all. Now we're not poisoning everybody. The air is much cleaner than in the 70s.

Yes in some things the Government does know what's best for you. You really need to get over it and move on.

Name calling. You don't like Old School Hard Liner. You tell me what you are. Libertarian hard liner? Anarchist? I'll just say "your type".
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3273303 - 02/07/14 05:50 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The EPA is behind the mandates, that is true, and I am against just about everything the EPA does, and there are no subsidies any more. Haven't been for over two years now, and that was at the request of the ethanol producers. Well, the name calling was accurate. If someone thinks that a chunk of crop land is just corn, corn, corn, corn year after year after year, then they are a nincompoop. No farming operation does that. They rotate crops as I mentioned. And from what I have read from some, it is quite clear they probably have never even set foot on a farm, let alone have any basic idea of what goes on with one. In the words of John Wayne in the movie "Mclintock"...... "they think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". Pretty much sums it up.

I know how useless it is to present you with facts and research from previous run ins with you. But here goes anyway for everyone else to look at. You just continue on with your ethanol shilling.

Quote:
Many Midwest growers are considering more corn in their cropping mix, but that usually means
growing corn after corn, a situation that adds production costs, can increase risk, and most would
say compromises yield potential. But many with experience raising corn on corn see no
additional risk and a situation where they can raise some of their best yields. They have found
ways to make the continuous cropping system work
, managing crop residues with fall nitrogen
and tillage, maintaining high P and K levels in the soil, adequate amounts of applied nitrogen, and
high plant populations.

Purdue University

whistle


Edited by hatt (02/07/14 05:55 AM)
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3273607 - 02/07/14 11:21 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I feel exactly the same. No subsidies, no mandates. Allow the market to justify the program economically, just like any good product or service does.

The name calling is nuttin' new. They always do that when they can't win with facts or agree to disagree...



The subsidies have gone away which I don't agree with. Sometimes its the only way to get a technology in its infancy going. Would you support a subsidy for Fusion power? Is there anything that should ever get a break?

Yep, 10 or 15% ethanol in all gas is a mandate. The same way unleaded gas was and your type said that would be the end of the world. We made the switch with hardly any problems at all. Now we're not poisoning everybody. The air is much cleaner than in the 70s.

Yes in some things the Government does know what's best for you. You really need to get over it and move on.

Name calling. You don't like Old School Hard Liner. You tell me what you are. Libertarian hard liner? Anarchist? I'll just say "your type".


I have some names but I refuse to say them and then retract them as you do. I don't need to use that tactic. Ludicrous to assume you know who I am because of my opinions. That's quite ignorant, although also very common these days.

I have many liberal friends who firmly believe in Central Planning, but even they have admitted that THE ONLY REASON a mandate exists for ethanol in fuel is lobbying. Too bad you imagine it is some deeply benevolent government program only designed to help you. At first it's actually funny, then on further reflection it's actually a bit sad.

"We're here from the Government, and we want to help you"!

Larry the cable guy said "I believe that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you can not baptize cats."
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3274022 - 02/07/14 05:44 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Larry the cable guy said "I believe that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you can not baptize cats."


A mentor of yours?

That splains a lot. grin
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3274505 - 02/08/14 06:58 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The EPA is behind the mandates, that is true, and I am against just about everything the EPA does, and there are no subsidies any more. Haven't been for over two years now, and that was at the request of the ethanol producers. Well, the name calling was accurate. If someone thinks that a chunk of crop land is just corn, corn, corn, corn year after year after year, then they are a nincompoop. No farming operation does that. They rotate crops as I mentioned. And from what I have read from some, it is quite clear they probably have never even set foot on a farm, let alone have any basic idea of what goes on with one. In the words of John Wayne in the movie "Mclintock"...... "they think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". Pretty much sums it up.

I know how useless it is to present you with facts and research from previous run ins with you. But here goes anyway for everyone else to look at. You just continue on with your ethanol shilling.

Quote:
Many Midwest growers are considering more corn in their cropping mix, but that usually means
growing corn after corn, a situation that adds production costs, can increase risk, and most would
say compromises yield potential. But many with experience raising corn on corn see no
additional risk and a situation where they can raise some of their best yields. They have found
ways to make the continuous cropping system work
, managing crop residues with fall nitrogen
and tillage, maintaining high P and K levels in the soil, adequate amounts of applied nitrogen, and
high plant populations.

Purdue University

whistle


Wow. You have Purdue and whatever academic is pushing that view. I have a farm and a large family that have other farms, friends that farm, and we come from a line that has been farming these farms since the 1800's. As opposed to some academia farmer wannabe's at Purdue, we know what works best on farm ground. We all have our college degrees too. We don't have some Ma and Pa Kettle operations going on. And corn after corn after corn is not cost effective, is not beneficial to the soil, is not in any way a good thing. What someone Purdue economist dreamed up is not what goes on out here in the real world. Grain prices do not support such techniques as well. Sure, you might find a few commercial growers that are short sighted and have no problem screwing up their ground, but that is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. And I would bet that after corn prices settled from their spike a couple of years ago, that it is hard to find anyone playing the corn after corn after corn game. Purdue aside. But then, those academics are not dependent on what the grain prices are and how to run business'. They have tenure and that is all that matters and they will spout the University party line.

I am not a shill for ethanol. I am tired of all the nonsense that gets thrown around about it by folks who barely know how to plant a garden and wouldn't know the working end of a dairy cow trying to claim certain things about farming and how we do things on farms. But it has always been that way. Government hacks and academics in cubicles always deciding what is best for farming. And the so-called experts on ethanol that are really Johnny come lately's, when we have been using ethanol in various blends in almost all of or gasoline fired engines for several decades with no problems. I could really care less if anyone uses ethanol or not. That is the beauty of the system, you pull up to some fuel pumps and make a selection. It is really telling how some, because of their prejudice against a product, will do everything they can to line up anecdotal evidences of the sky is falling scenario about that product. Hey, you can just not buy it! Simple. Oh, you have to because of the government? Well, 3/4 of the country wanted a government that would crawl into our lives so much, so deal with it. Yep, 3/4 of the nation like this kind of thing. How do I know this? 1/2 of the eligible people do not vote, so they by default support this stuff. The half that do vote, half of them actively like this kind of stuff. There is your 3/4 of the nation. Now we all have to live with it.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3274564 - 02/08/14 08:16 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Larry the cable guy said "I believe that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you can not baptize cats."


A mentor of yours?

That splains a lot. grin


Lots of wisdom there, and this thread is rapidly proving him to be correct.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3274630 - 02/08/14 09:33 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
LOL, excellent. I see TT subscribes to the "When presented with evidence showing you don't know what you're talking about always go directly at the authors personally so you don't have to address the substance" debate strategy.

Quote:
I am not a shill for ethanol.

Do you make money from the ethanol industry?


Edited by hatt (02/08/14 09:35 AM)
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3274692 - 02/08/14 10:34 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Nope. I personally have nothing to do with the industry. Not a part of any Farmer's Coop that has invested in it. I just truck and farm. I suppose that some of the corn that has come off of my property has made it's way to an ethanol plant somewhere. I am only concerned with getting it to market and getting paid for it. Legalized gambling in a way, try to hit the market highs to sell. I could care less if it goes to an ethanol plant, a feed lot, or to a family in China. I know how all the ethanol industry works, having roughly 40 ethanol plants and 15 biodiesel plants surrounding me, and knowing some folks who are directly involved with it.

See, many in farming may or may not have any interest in the ethanol thing, but the market price for corn is all it really comes down to. The cost of production factored in. It isn't like very many grain producers are shipping from the field to the ethanol plant. There is a little of that, but a very small percentage. Most farmers are timing markets, rotating crops, and doing things based on profits and losses. Ethanol hardly even gets much more than a blip on the farming radar. The higher market prices, across the board, that occurred at the end of the 90's is what drove up the opening of more land to crop production. Ethanol probably had a hand in that, but a huge chunk of the upward price came from worldwide demand. We export more corn than we use for ethanol production.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3274808 - 02/08/14 12:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
I'm starting a campaign to have orange juice sales mandated to every American. You with me?
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3275135 - 02/08/14 06:05 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm starting a campaign to have orange juice sales mandated to every American. You with me?


It worked with milk...well nearly like that.

Top
#3275393 - 02/08/14 09:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm starting a campaign to have orange juice sales mandated to every American.

Just make sure it still flows north, okay? wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3275553 - 02/09/14 05:25 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm starting a campaign to have orange juice sales mandated to every American. You with me?



hahaha, the silence is deafening...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3276577 - 02/10/14 02:02 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Is there anything that should ever get a break?


If we stop subsidizing Medicare it'll be interesting to see what voters normally against subsidies think. How about all those free prescription drugs?

How many people blame government for high gas prices when the economy is doing well and China is rising and at the same time are against ethanol?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

The same way unleaded gas was and your type said that would be the end of the world. We made the switch with hardly any problems at all. Now we're not poisoning everybody. The air is much cleaner than in the 70s.


Good point. We're better off without leaded gas but careful, that's a govt mandate!

Top
#3276597 - 02/10/14 05:26 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: hatt
I'm starting a campaign to have orange juice sales mandated to every American. You with me?


It worked with milk...well nearly like that.


Indeed. The dairy lobby is very powerful.

Her's a nice quick synopsis of some of the pork in the Farm Bill. No, it's not ALL food stamps. But it is more borrowed money...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitl...e-spending-far?

The Central Planners always know what's best for you!
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3277560 - 02/10/14 10:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
You are right, there is nonsense in the farm bill. But the topic here has been regarding farmers and farm subsidies and supposed subsidies to the ethanol industry. None of that type of thing was even mentioned by the guy from Citizens Against Government Waste. We can always find things that get put into bills that is stupid, like how the last Highway Bill had a grant for building a Tea Pot Museum in South Carolina.

And the amounts they mentioned... 100m here, 200m there is but a drop in the bucket. The entire Farm Bill is a 1 trillion dollar deal. And the lion's share goes to the food stamp program. And in the entire article and presentation in the video, not one thing was mentioned about typical farmers or food stamps. Just a 15 cent surcharge on Christmas trees, Indian reality TV shows, Catfish inspection, and sugar price supports. Not a single mention about corn, soybeans, ethanol. How could that be? After all, everyone knows that farmer's and ethanol producers are just raking it in getting all those tax dollars from the government! Still waiting for one of those subsidy checks that everyone thinks us farmers are getting.

Oh, and "pork" in the farm bill (I do know what is meant by that), there was not one mention of any subsidy going to the pork growers either. Imagine, a bill full of pork not having anything to do with pork.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3277573 - 02/10/14 10:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
And I just learned I was spouting inaccurate information! I have been stating the Farm Bill was 75% food stamps. I have been corrected by a breakdown analysis on one of the business shows. It is actually 80%. My bad.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3278741 - 02/11/14 09:50 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
volk06 Offline


Registered: 10/04/10
Posts: 4273
Loc: .
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The EPA is behind the mandates, that is true, and I am against just about everything the EPA does, and there are no subsidies any more. Haven't been for over two years now, and that was at the request of the ethanol producers. Well, the name calling was accurate. If someone thinks that a chunk of crop land is just corn, corn, corn, corn year after year after year, then they are a nincompoop. No farming operation does that. They rotate crops as I mentioned. And from what I have read from some, it is quite clear they probably have never even set foot on a farm, let alone have any basic idea of what goes on with one. In the words of John Wayne in the movie "Mclintock"...... "they think that cows are something you milk, and Indians are something in front of a cigar store". Pretty much sums it up.

I know how useless it is to present you with facts and research from previous run ins with you. But here goes anyway for everyone else to look at. You just continue on with your ethanol shilling.

Quote:
Many Midwest growers are considering more corn in their cropping mix, but that usually means
growing corn after corn, a situation that adds production costs, can increase risk, and most would
say compromises yield potential. But many with experience raising corn on corn see no
additional risk and a situation where they can raise some of their best yields. They have found
ways to make the continuous cropping system work
, managing crop residues with fall nitrogen
and tillage, maintaining high P and K levels in the soil, adequate amounts of applied nitrogen, and
high plant populations.

Purdue University

whistle


Umm... yea... just because one article says they've found ways to do it doesn't mean that's what's actually happening. There are some fields are on continuous corn on corn but most fields and farmers don't do that for extended crop cycles. Most of the time it is a corn-soybean rotation, with a few fields of corn on corn which are then converted back to soybeans after a year or two. It all comes down to economics... if the profit margin on corn is higher, more corn will be planted but most farmers stay diversified with soybeans and corn, just not all one or the other. The yield from corn on corn starts to go down after a few years due to the nutrient demand and drain and then its either plant soybeans to put some of those back or pump a lot of fertilizer into the ground, a lot of people here go the soybean route. Continuous corn on corn is very hard on the soil, that's why a lot of farmers still do their crop rotations. You can ruin soil pretty quickly if a person does not take care of it. You see a lot of corn on corn on rented ground, people who do not care about the land in the end. Without good land there are not crops....That's the problem.
_________________________
2011 F-150 Ecoboost
2012 Focus S
2011 Taurus

Top
#3278758 - 02/11/14 10:04 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
The argument doesn't stand up to reason. A farmer is going to have to pay, depending on soil quality and other variables, from $5000 an acre to $11,000 per acre or more for farm ground. What incentive is there to plant corn, corn, corn and destroy the soil structure as opposed to sensible crop rotation? And also, regarding soil erosion, what incentive is there to just plow up ground in an irresponsible manner and have all that top soil just end up in the Mississippi river? You must think that farmers view the land like the gold rush pioneers in Callfornia and Alaska did when they used hydraulic dredging and other land destroying techniques and laid the area an environmental mess. Farmers are generally very good stewards of the land. They know what and how things need to be done. They have a strong, vested interest in seeing that the land remain intact, fertile, and productive for not only the years they use it, but so they can pass that land down, in good shape, to the next generation.

And, as I have stated, corn prices are the same as they were in the Bush administration. Yet, fuel, fertilizer, herbicides, even seed corn, have all inflated in price. So there is no profit incentive to rape the land by planting endlessly in corn, or any other grain crop for that matter. Soybeans are doing a little better than corn, but not enough to justify year over year planting of them. And you have to also consider, that when you do year over year planting of the same type of crop, the successive years do not have the same yield potential as the year previous. That is because different crops have differing effects on the soil. Soybeans and alfalfa replenish nitrogen in the soil. Corn needs a substantial amount of nitrogen to have good yields. Corn has a rather shallow root structure. Alfalfa roots go substantially deeper and help nuture the soil and allow water to penetrate deeper.

See, a lot gets missed by those that have no actual experience with this. You think I am spouting some thing I happened to read in a Farm Bureau publication. I have lived on the same farm I am on now, since I was in Junior High school. I am now within striking distance of filling for SSI. The land that makes up this farm is in better shape, better managed, more ecologically sound, than when I was a child. We still drink good water from the well that is sourced form the ground on which we farm. We learn new techniques, and we apply them. We understand the crops we raise and how they interact with each other. Just as there is a delicate balance to nature, there is a harmony to farming.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3278842 - 02/11/14 11:32 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island

Top
#3279103 - 02/12/14 09:01 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
LOL. Don't know how this turned into a crop rotation thread. The FACTS are that some people grow corn on corn. Whether or not you can accept the facts is irrelevant. Whether or not it's a good practice is irrelevant.

Quote:
If someone thinks that a chunk of crop land is just corn, corn, corn, corn year after year after year, then they are a nincompoop. No farming operation does that.

TiredTrucker, you should have issued me an apology.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3279446 - 02/12/14 01:44 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: hatt
LOL. Don't know how this turned into a crop rotation thread.


It's because discussions with TireTrucker end up with you trying to heard cats...

Top
#3279482 - 02/12/14 02:36 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
I wish i could think of cool words like nincompoop.

That makes you smart...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3279493 - 02/12/14 02:47 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
satinsilver Offline


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 2911
Loc: Ohio
Wow, this thread. All it needs is grampi posting on it. smile

Top
#3280219 - 02/13/14 01:43 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: satinsilver]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
TiredTrucker, Didn't you know improper crop rotation does more damage to the environment than dumping 500 million gallons of crude into the Gulf?

Get with it man.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3280223 - 02/13/14 02:07 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
TiredTrucker, Didn't you know improper crop rotation does more damage to the environment than dumping 500 million gallons of crude into the Gulf?


How does THAT become an either/or ?

Oh, it doesn't but it adds to your argument somehow...not the logic part, but the argument.

(wonder how many strawmen it takes to ensure national security)

Top
#3280262 - 02/13/14 04:36 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
It would seem at least remotely possible that much more raw crude than mentioned has been dumped over the many years of the Earth's existence by vents and holes in the sea bottom.

Somehow we survived.

Strawmen abound here, logic not necessary in a "save the Earth" mindset...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3280319 - 02/13/14 06:45 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
TiredTrucker, Didn't you know improper crop rotation does more damage to the environment than dumping 500 million gallons of crude into the Gulf?

Get with it man.



Since you are an expert, then as a farmer, lay it out what is improper crop rotation. Never heard the term before, but always willing to learn. With the types of ag crops generally planted in my area of the country, Iowa, please outline a PROPER crop rotation plan so that we all can learn from it. Give us an outlay of the not only the crops that one would rotate properly, but also in what order they would be rotated properly. How would the your rotation plan increase the complimentary interaction of the various crops? How would your rotation plan decrease the impact on the soil conditions? Since you seem to think I need to "get with it", I need to find out what we have been doing wrong on the farm. I mean, our yields are easily double what they were on the same ground from 30 years ago, while the ground is more ecologically stable than when I was a child, as we are using no till farming techniques, soil analysis with computer controlled application rates for fertilizer which has greatly reduced the amount needed, targeted applications of herbicides to greatly reduce the amount there as well compared to years past. And no irrigation is used, and never has been. I am trying to figure out what we are doing so wrong according to you.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3280894 - 02/13/14 04:00 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker

Since you are an expert,


No not at all. Attempting humor. That's it. I support your efforts 100%
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3280947 - 02/13/14 04:40 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Ok, my bad... smile
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3281566 - 02/14/14 07:24 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Typical here, as it is easy to be completely misunderstood via the typewritten word.
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3294791 - 02/26/14 09:29 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Man it was nice being up in TN and able to buy pure gas for reasonable prices. While filling up I saw a lobbyist cry.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3295477 - 02/26/14 07:20 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: hatt
Man it was nice being up in TN and able to buy pure gas for reasonable prices. While filling up I saw a lobbyist cry.


How far into the backwater did you have to go to find "pure gas"? Pick me up some boiled peanuts and cracklins.

Top
#3295809 - 02/27/14 05:38 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Man it was nice being up in TN and able to buy pure gas for reasonable prices. While filling up I saw a lobbyist cry.


How far into the backwater did you have to go to find "pure gas"? Pick me up some boiled peanuts and cracklins.



Excuse me, what did you say? I couldn't hear you under that thick blanket of snow...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3295848 - 02/27/14 07:06 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
If I'd known you were going to be so mad I would have taken a picture. More bad news for you. I bought pure gas for the OPE yesterday. Three miles from the house(I live in New Yankeeville). It's too expensive to run in the truck but that's changing since we crushed the ethanol mandate last year. Won't be long before pure gas will be free flowing.


Edited by hatt (02/27/14 07:08 AM)
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3296497 - 02/27/14 04:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: hatt
I bought pure gas for the OPE yesterday.


OPE? I don't know what that is but I bet it smells like an old man.

I can't imagine that anyone who drives a 4 cyl camry would care what they put in it or if you'd be able to tell any difference.

Hot rodders are going to want to run the E85 fuel. It's catching on because it makes more power and doesn't detonate in high compression engines. The bigger percentage ethanol we can get in gas the better our stuff is going to run because of the octane boost.

New Yankeeville? Dude the civil war is over and done with. You've got so many chips on your shoulder it must be hard to stand up straight.

Top
#3296846 - 02/27/14 10:01 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: hatt
It's too expensive to run in the truck but that's changing since we crushed the ethanol mandate last year. Won't be long before pure gas will be free flowing.


Thanks!! Really!! i can expect that the E85 I fuel up with regularly will stay $1 below gas price in my area like it has been. Not bad getting E85 for around $2.40 a gallon an d I only lose about 13-15% mpg compared to gas that is 30% higher. See, we can all work together to benefit each other.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3296874 - 02/27/14 10:40 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: hatt
It's too expensive to run in the truck but that's changing since we crushed the ethanol mandate last year. Won't be long before pure gas will be free flowing.


Thanks!! Really!! i can expect that the E85 I fuel up with regularly will stay $1 below gas price in my area like it has been. Not bad getting E85 for around $2.40 a gallon an d I only lose about 13-15% mpg compared to gas that is 30% higher. See, we can all work together to benefit each other.

I'm here to help. Running ethanol makes sense where it's produced in quantity. I'd be running it for $2.40. Shipping it all over the country to contaminate my gas so ADM and Monsanto's stock prices stay high doesn't. If it hadn't gone political, and drove up the price, it would have been a nice product for regional folks.


Edited by hatt (02/27/14 10:41 PM)
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3297609 - 02/28/14 05:54 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Just fueled today with E85. Price $2.45. E10 going for 3.39, regular gas 3.62 and premium 3.84. I get premium performance for $1.40 lower and only lose about 15% fuel economy.

I agree, where it is practical, it makes sense. A lot of areas don't have such price spreads, so it may not be advantageous for them to do what I am doing. But I am using less gas so those that prefer it have more available to them! Ethanol is ideally a regional fuel. I don't think it needs to be sent all over the country either. One has to remember, that this all came about because MTBE, another fuel oxygenate, was severely polluting ground water, so ethanol was selected to replace it. Maybe not the most ideal choice, as butanol would have been a better alternative, but at least it doesn't pollute like MTBE does. As a side note, there is a move to take ethanol refining to the next step and formulate butanol. That ought to alleviate a lot of folk's concerns.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3297689 - 02/28/14 07:14 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Ethanol is ideally a regional fuel. I don't think it needs to be sent all over the country either.


It eliminates a lot of pollution in the big cities. We have guys here whining because they think it's gonna hurt their Camry. I don't give a dump. Most of the resistance is coming out of Florida where they think "gasohol" is a new thing.

Have you seen the pollution clouds in Denver, LA, NY etc? We are not going to go backwards because some don't understand. I bet they're still looking for leaded gas too.

A lot of these old farts are going to die off soon anyway.

Top
#3297698 - 02/28/14 07:21 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Panzerman Offline


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 2483
Loc: Daytona, Florida
You don't understand. Do you know how much more fuel you burn to develop the crops, That you don't feed livestock, to get worse fuel mileage and burn more gas. Ethanol is joke. People in Florida hate it, because we have a lot of small engines and outboards. Yeah, us old guys will die and you "genius's" will be riding around on bicycles, because you don't want to offend turtles.

Top
#3297715 - 02/28/14 07:41 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
edhackett Online   content


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1539
Loc: Sequim, WA
E10 has no net benefit on air pollution. It helped when engines were carbureted, but any benefit on a modern fuel injected car operating in closed loop is offset by the greater amount of fuel that needs to be burned. These studies were done at my previous employer. The data is the property of the study sponsors, so I am not free to post details.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Brazil for the effect of running a large portion of the fleet on ethanol. South America, Brazil in particular, was becoming one of our larger clients for air analysis at the time I retired.

Ed
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3297716 - 02/28/14 07:42 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
I bought pure gas for the OPE yesterday.


OPE? I don't know what that is but I bet it smells like an old man.

I can't imagine that anyone who drives a 4 cyl camry would care what they put in it or if you'd be able to tell any difference.

Hot rodders are going to want to run the E85 fuel. It's catching on because it makes more power and doesn't detonate in high compression engines. The bigger percentage ethanol we can get in gas the better our stuff is going to run because of the octane boost.

New Yankeeville? Dude the civil war is over and done with. You've got so many chips on your shoulder it must be hard to stand up straight.










Huh?

What's this extra octane you speak of. Because I assure you that 87,89,91 and maybe 93 is all the octane we will be getting. So your comment makes no sense.
Yeah some hot rodders like e-85 but how many of those cars are daily drivers.
Our octane levels aren't going to be changing,just the ethanol concentration will.

So to correct your post: the bigger percentage of ethanol YOU get the worse your equipment will run because the octane levels won't change so that equipment will get fuel with less actual gasoline,but the same octane.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3297727 - 02/28/14 08:03 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Panzerman]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
People in Florida hate it, because we have a lot of small engines and outboards.


Do you know how ridiculous you sound? You think you have more outboards and small engines than the rest of the U.S.? Florida is a puny part of the picture.

Modern two stroke oils provide excellent lubricity and corrosion protection when mixed in ethanol blends.






Top
#3297818 - 02/28/14 09:56 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Panzerman]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
You don't understand. Do you know how much more fuel you burn to develop the crops, That you don't feed livestock, to get worse fuel mileage and burn more gas. Ethanol is joke. People in Florida hate it, because we have a lot of small engines and outboards. Yeah, us old guys will die and you "genius's" will be riding around on bicycles, because you don't want to offend turtles.


Do you have any experience in farming or are you just repeating something you heard? Farming uses LESS fuel than ever before per acre (ever hear of low till and no till farming?), yields per acre are thru the roof (A farmer in Illinois set a new record last fall... 454 bushels per acre, documented), and only a part of the corn is used to make ethanol, the rest is corn oil (you know, something your french fries are cooked in), and high protein feed supplements (very much in big demand by livestock and poultry producers here and outside the U.S.), and a huge laundry list of other products.... from the very same kernels of corn that are used to make ethanol. And how do I know all of this... I farm and I haul products from corn production facilities. I currently have 45,000 lb of 60% protein Biolys feed supplement made from Dried Distillers Grain after ethanol production at the Cargil bio refinery in Blair, NE, going to a major livestock feed supplier in Michigan. There is no loss of food, both human and animal varieties, from making ethanol from corn. The nonsense it spouted by folks who think that once a kernel of corn is used to make ethanol, the rest is thrown away. If you knew agriculture at all, you would know that NOTHING is wasted.

True, it gets less mpg, but when I use E85, I only get about 15% less mpg while using only 15% gas. The net is a savings in both cost per mile and total gas consumption. This OLD GUY is more than happy to fill up with E85. My pickup does great and my cost per mile for using it is substantially lower than with any gas only product. Oh yeah, and my small gas engines regularly use E10. I have a John Deere rider mower with over 500 hours that has seen nothing but E10 in the tank. Same for my pressure washer and portable generators.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3297855 - 02/28/14 10:36 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Panzerman]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
you "genius's" will be riding around on bicycles, because you don't want to offend turtles.


If we have to ride bikes it'll be the fault of people like you who are being led by the nose by big oil.

Do you want to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline? Can you afford that? Do you think that they'd get that price if they could? You're crazy if you don't think so. OPEC, Russia, Mexico can hold us hostage on oil. There is only so much left. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time.

If we create a world ethanol market, that gives us an alternative and keeps the pressure on to keep oil affordable. We've got to have a strategy and we have to get going on it now. NOW.

But if you're more concerned about your chain saw and string trimmer....

sheez Sheeple

Top
#3297865 - 02/28/14 10:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Huh?


Wake up.

E85 is around 105 octane because of the ethanol content. The more ethanol you put in a gasoline of a given octane the more you will raise the octane of the overall mix.

Maybe I'm just a failure as a teacher. But, it's obvious to me. How did they put it in the textbooks? Obvious to the most casual observer.

Top
#3297869 - 02/28/14 10:59 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: edhackett]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: edhackett
The data is the property of the study sponsors, so I am not free to post details.

Ed


WOW earthshaking study there. And they're holding on to it, why?

Alcohol is one of the cleanest burning fuels on the planet. And that's only 1 of several reasons we need it. See my posts above.

Brazil is polluted for other reasons.

Top
#3297886 - 02/28/14 11:39 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
edhackett Online   content


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1539
Loc: Sequim, WA
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Maybe I'm just a failure as a teacher.


Yes, yes you are. Your condescending, know it all, holier than thou attitude has assured that nobody will take anything you say seriously.

Ed
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3297888 - 02/28/14 11:49 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Huh?


Wake up.

E85 is around 105 octane because of the ethanol content. The more ethanol you put in a gasoline of a given octane the more you will raise the octane of the overall mix.

Maybe I'm just a failure as a teacher. But, it's obvious to me. How did they put it in the textbooks? Obvious to the most casual observer.



I'm wide awake.
So e-85 is 105 octane. That's great. Too bad no engine is mass produced for consumer purchase.
What seems to be flying way over your head is that pump fuel octane ratings will not change.
So that means if e-15 and e-20 become the norm then we will not benefit from any higher octane fuels,we will still have what's available now,except the with ethanol content increased which means less actual gasoline which then means engines have to burn more if it to equal the same volume of gasoline.
So your whole theory of higher octane making engines run better is hogwash. For 1 engines are built according to the available octane fuel and 99% of the time they are built for the lowest commonly available so that theory can be flushed down the toilet.
So turt I suggest you wake up. I didn't make the world I live in I just adapt to succeed in it.
If your a teacher I'm not surprised.
Those who can do do,those who can't ........
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3297892 - 03/01/14 12:35 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Huh?


Wake up.

E85 is around 105 octane because of the ethanol content. The more ethanol you put in a gasoline of a given octane the more you will raise the octane of the overall mix.

Maybe I'm just a failure as a teacher. But, it's obvious to me. How did they put it in the textbooks? Obvious to the most casual observer.


turtlevette, you claim to be an engineer, but explore and proclaim some of the most simplisitic arguyments that I have ever come across, and when you are outclassed, you resort to name calling...

What exactly IS your degree, and where did you get it ?

I'm interested

Top
#3297916 - 03/01/14 01:39 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: edhackett]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: edhackett

Your condescending, know it all, holier than thou attitude


NO I'm not holy.

I'm an EE. If you want more detail, I want to know what ya'll do and why you think you know something in this area.

Like I said. I see the exact same arguments from people who are extreme right wing or libertarian or whatever on other sites. Exactly. Line for line. Anybody can regurgitate stuff. Who can think for themselves?

Top
#3297923 - 03/01/14 02:35 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
edhackett Online   content


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1539
Loc: Sequim, WA
Thirty two years with the Desert Research Institute http://www.dri.edu as an analytical chemist doing environmental research. My first 15 years were doing geochemistry and isotope geochemistry, including projects at the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain. The past 17 years I was doing air quality research; both characterization and health effects. I've worked on all aspects of air quality sampling; from experimental design, sampler design and construction, and developing analytical techniques. I've worked on projects all over the U.S., Canada, Mexico, South America, China, Israel, Egypt, and others. So, yea I picked up a bit of knowledge about about air quality.

There's much I'd love to share here but am not free to discuss in public, as much of our work is contract, and it is up to the sponsor to release the research to the public, or not. The ethanol study I mentioned above was sponsored by the California Air Resources Board. The results are moot, as politics trump science; ethanol no longer offers any improvement in air quality, but the mandate to use it will remain due to other political reasons.

Ed
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3297961 - 03/01/14 07:00 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
If only "someone" could post actual information/data showing ethanol's environmental virtues.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3298049 - 03/01/14 09:22 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
Well, this is not a full blown government sponsored study, but this video shows some interesting emission outputs of gas, gas/oil 2 stroke mix, E85, and kerosene.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAyoCo3xXA&list=PL3AB1D360AE7F5324
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3298113 - 03/01/14 10:11 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: hatt]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: hatt
If only "someone" could post actual information/data showing ethanol's environmental virtues.

I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3298150 - 03/01/14 11:07 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.


I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me it's about having an alternative fuel more than environmental gains. I would point to the EPA for studies on environmental gains from ethanol, but you guys believe that is an evil, useless and corrupt arm of the government. I refuse to believe that and when considering the relative evils of big oil, Archer Daniels Midland, and middle eastern terrorism and hate, I think we need to continue the path that we're on and raise the ethanol content.

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings. I think we have a good president in office.


Top
#3298246 - 03/01/14 12:46 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me, at the outset, I don't "mind" ethanol laced/enhanced fuels. I sought them years ago, long before mandates appeared in either of our countries.

But here is why. And we can't just blame big oil - government has their share of blame. We have a station here called Husky (and Mohawk, more were Mohawks years ago). In any event, before we had any mandates, they offered pure gas 87 octane at one price. They also offered an 89 or 90 octane mid grade E10 at the same prices prices. Then they had a premium with a point or two higher octane than other premiums available at the time. So, plenty of people sought E10 mid grade, since it was the same money as regular.

The province got involved and twisted everything beyond recognition. Now, Husky/Mohawk's 87 is E10 (perhaps that lesser octane gas mixed with ethanol to enhance octane rating). Mid grade costs more than regular, and so forth.

Additionally, up here, corn isn't an issue. Wheat silage is used to produce ethanol. And, as I've stated many time here, that is not food-grade (with respect to human consumption) grain; it is feed-grade (with respect to animal consumption) grain. Wheat is graded at delivery. No one intentionally grows feed-grade wheat. It doesn't work that way.

I know there are also people who don't like the idea of grain fed cattle. Fine. If all barley grown in this country were malt grade and all wheat were Number 1 grade, cattle wouldn't get to touch a single grain unless those responsible for feeding them liked paying a premium. But, the weather doesn't cooperate, and feed grade grains happen each and every year and they have to be used for something.

When soy sauce is made, silage is produced. Should that be forbidden as cattle feed, too? wink

In the grand scheme of things, I don't know if we should be going to more or less ethanol use in fuel. Time will tell when it comes to economies of scale and improved production. What I do know is that OPE and recreational equipment manufacturers need to quit crying about ethanol and accept that it's here. Complaining loudly about ethanol content is a very good diversion for the eighty cent fuel systems they put in such equipment these days. The components have a shorter shelf life than the fuel itself, for crying out loud.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3298303 - 03/01/14 01:52 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
edhackett Online   content


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1539
Loc: Sequim, WA
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings.


This isn't about politics, it's about science. If you wish to actually do that independent thinking you claim to be doing, you need to set aside the politics too.

I'll get you started. You seem willing to accept the EPA as a credible source of information. Here is a peer reviewed paper published by their Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park predicting higher overall ozone and air toxics in the U.S. due to increasing use of ethanol.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010007375

Ed

P.S. What political leanings would you ascribe to someone who has dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment?
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

Top
#3298408 - 03/01/14 03:48 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible, but as Ed hinted at a little bit above, the biggest virtue for ethanol from an emissions standpoint was back when carbed vehicles were the norm and things are a wee bit different now.


I can understand that. When cars were much dirtier the gains were greater. At least we have a few of you recognizing ethanol does burn cleaner.

Maybe what Clevy is saying is that we'll get a lower quality octane gas mixed with the extra 5% ethanol to get the same overall octane rating. I wouldn't doubt that. I'll concede that could be what will happen considering the sleaze factor of big oil

For me it's about having an alternative fuel more than environmental gains. I would point to the EPA for studies on environmental gains from ethanol, but you guys believe that is an evil, useless and corrupt arm of the government. I refuse to believe that and when considering the relative evils of big oil, Archer Daniels Midland, and middle eastern terrorism and hate, I think we need to continue the path that we're on and raise the ethanol content.

I do respect your expertise but have different political leanings. I think we have a good president in office.



Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. With the ethanol mandate increasing that means the refinery can use a lesser octane gasoline and improve it with more ethanol improving the octane to the point it meets our minimum standards.

Garak hit the nail on the head. We used to get 90 octane from Mohawk/husky for the same price as 87 octane. And 94 octane for the same price as pure gas 91 octane.
I used their 90 octane almost exclusively until it changed. That's when I started searching for pure gasoline.
If I'm going to pay a premium for it anyways I better get the real stuff right.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3298415 - 03/01/14 04:19 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: edhackett]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: edhackett

This isn't about politics, it's about science. If you wish to actually do that independent thinking you claim to be doing, you need to set aside the politics too.

I'll get you started. You seem willing to accept the EPA as a credible source of information. Here is a peer reviewed paper published by their Office of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park predicting higher overall ozone and air toxics in the U.S. due to increasing use of ethanol.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231010007375

Ed

P.S. What political leanings would you ascribe to someone who has dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment?


EISA is projected to improve ozone air quality in a few highly-populated areas that currently have poor air quality. Most of the ozone improvements are due to our assumption of increases in nitrogen oxides (NOx) in volatile organic compound (VOC)-limited areas. While there are some localized impacts, the EISA renewable fuel standards have relatively little impact on national average ambient concentrations of most air toxics, although ethanol concentrations increase substantially. Significant uncertainties are associated with all results, due to limitations in available data.

This is saying it improves air quality in large cities and has no impact everywhere else. Good enough for me. That doesn't say anything about a negative impact.

I would expect someone who had dedicated their career to the betterment of the environment to have at least some respect for the EPA.





Top
#3298427 - 03/01/14 04:34 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TiredTrucker]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, this is not a full blown government sponsored study, but this video shows some interesting emission outputs of gas, gas/oil 2 stroke mix, E85, and kerosene.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOAyoCo3xXA&list=PL3AB1D360AE7F5324


Bwahahaha...that's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Next time I start my car by lighting fuel on a stick, I'll refer back to that...based on that science, tell me how biodiesel is good ???

Top
#3298571 - 03/01/14 07:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bwahahaha...that's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Next time I start my car by lighting fuel on a stick, I'll refer back to that...based on that science, tell me how biodiesel is good ???


That's the funniest thing....

Really?

You don't think that proves anything? Have you ever done experiments? Ever spend any time in a lab?

Top
#3298649 - 03/01/14 08:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Yeah, a little bit.

Top
#3298715 - 03/01/14 09:25 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yeah, a little bit.


Then that experiment should mean something to you.

Top
#3298748 - 03/01/14 09:51 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
It means that richer than stoichiometric laminar flames associated with a burning wick (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fuels in an internal combustion engine) create soot.

Whereas combustion inside an engine is turbulent, mixed, and has closely controlled stoichiometry.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

Why, what does it mean to you ?

Top
#3298759 - 03/01/14 10:05 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
No it's not exactly the combustion process under pressure you'd have in an engine cylinder but it proves under the same conditions gas produces much more soot than alcohol. A hemi chamber is going to give a different burn than a flat chamber that has quench. So what. Under equal conditions alcohol will always burn cleaner.

We've seen the teardown pictures of engines run on E85 and they have a minimum of carbon on the pistons. Why do you think that is?

I'm not saying you don't know your stuff; however, you have a huge chip on your shoulder for whatever reason and you're not being intellectually honest regarding ethanol issues. We get the blah, blah, blah and you hope people will be intimidated and back off. I don't know it all, but I do know when I'm being [censored]'ed.

Did a farmer run over your dog?

Top
#3298831 - 03/02/14 02:24 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
LOL, I run this stuff in my Caprice with an L67 and higher boost pulley...
http://www.unitedpetroleum.com.au/united/fuel/premium-100

not because of the incorrect advertising fluff on th website.

25 years ago, I was a strong advocate of ethanol in Australia, as it was being produced efficiently from sugar cane. My own car at the time, I was mixing my own 10% blend with a mix of leaded/unleaded, a bit of acetone/MEK (co-solvent).

At the time, most of the cars on the road were carburetted, and nearly none had cat cons, so the benefits of ethanol as an additive were quite outstanding and clear.

With injection, and cats, there's no benefit, just an alternate fuel that should stand on it's own against perpetually rising petrol prices...and those of us with overboosted L67s are just as likely to buy it.

However, Manildra, one of the big grain companies has been paying politicians to make ethanol (theirs) mandatory, and my state premier moved to remove R.U.G. completely in favour of E10. A move that he had to reverese when the media found out about three secret meetings that he denied took place until evidence was brought out that the did.

State Premier was prepared to suckle from lobby groups when his own ministers rejected the cost implications to motorists.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/premier...9-1226251716686

25 years ago, ethanol was about an alternate fuel source, and science. Now it's about lobby groups, and political donations...before the mandate and requirements, ethanol cut the fuel price in Oz by 4%, which made it cost neutral with the reduction in MPG that you get from a 10% blend thermodynamically. Now that it has to be used, it's 2.5% saving, and won't pay for itself.

25 years ago, the world's strategic grain reserve (what you and I will eat post failed harvest) was around a year, now it's literally only a month or so.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Did a farmer run over your dog?


I see that your college left your reasoning skills at those of a kindergarden playground...

Top
#3298918 - 03/02/14 08:14 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
But ethanol had little if any impact on the strategic grain reserves. In the U.S. corn production has significantly out grown the increase in ethanol production. To the point where the U.S. is exporting corn at a level as high or higher than ever. Global demand has put more demand on any reserves than ethanol production. The also in all of this, the value of various currencies have had as much of an effect on things. Societies like China are changing their diets substantially to reflect the higher incomes of their people. China has increased considerably the level of animal protein in their diets. China now has to import a huge amount of grain to feed livestock to meet that demand. And it isn't about feeding this to cattle. Swine, poultry, etc consume far more grain products than cattle do. Again, those that spout this grain not good for cattle thing really have a huge myopia gland.

Ethanol prices are just like any other commodity on market exchanges... you have spot market buy prices and futures investment pricings. And it is very disingenuous to equate the thermodynamic level of a fuel to the actual mpg out of a vehicle. They do not extrapolate out equally on the same basis. If you lose 10% thermal efficiency, does not mean you lose 10% mpg. Engine design and the combustion process many times does not ride the same curve. With EBDI engines (Extreme Boosted Direct Injected) that are being tested now, it has been shown that with E85, they can get the same HP, Torque, and economy as can be had with diesel engines today, even though the BTU energy of these fuels are vastly different. EBDI will the one of the major events that will get autos to meet the new mandated U.S. CAFE standards by 2025 of 54.5 mpg.

See the first heavy hitter after the intro speaker in this conference video, Dr. Matti Vint, and the presentation of EBDI engine design and ethanol efficiencies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzM3RQp2STg and this article http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/1001...-ethanol-blends


Ethanol has lobby groups? No kidding. Name something that doesn't! Whether it is ethanol, farmers, gun owners, save the whales, save the snails, commercial trucking, etc, etc, etc, every thing in existence nowadays has a lobby group. And there have been lobby groups, payoffs, and such going on since mankind has been around. To all of a sudden have a disdain for lobby groups over ethanol doesn't really move me. It has always been about someone trying to persuade some government to do something. Be it democracies, theocracies, dictatorships, Socialist, Communist, Facist. The "its all about lobbying groups" argument seems to suggest a high degree of naiveté on one's part. There were people lobbying government leaders, agencies, etc clear back in the earliest parts of the Bible itself.

Yeah, and all of the outrage over ethanol and some misguided idea of how it is causing farmers to destroy the planet (mostly promoted by folks who barely have ever planted a garden), and that government officials are doing something new that they have never done before by listening to lobbyists and taking bribes, ad nauseam, just seems to suggest that a lot of folks do have a chip on their shoulder, as was suggested. I think that is why there has not been the progress in renewables to make them more effective an alternative, because there is so much energy wasted in bickering. Folks just plain don't like something so they are going to place a roadblock anywhere they can to stop it... oh... that is called lobbying! OMG! We have to put a stop to that don't we?
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
#3299273 - 03/02/14 02:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Did a farmer run over your dog?


I see that your college left your reasoning skills at those of a kindergarden playground...


Yea, You gotta admit that was funny. I at least crack myself up.

Thank you for coming clean and admitting that your motivations are political. And I agree to a very limited extent. But I think we are going to hit the wall on oil in my lifetime and I'd rather have some cushioning there even if its imperfect.

I keep saying we need to create a worldwide ethanol market. I don't want U.S. corn farmers holding us hostage any more than I do the big oil companies. There are many countries with lots of land that can grow something that can be converted to ethanol.

Top
#3299290 - 03/02/14 02:21 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Reading and comprehension are clearly another shortcoming of your training...or is it true what they used to tell us in Uni that the first day of an EE degree they drop them all on their head.

Top
#3299428 - 03/02/14 04:31 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Yea, As engineers neither of us would have very good reading comprehension skills, but rather excellent mathematical, mechanical and spatial skills. We're not known for having bang up social skills either.

Probably not the best politicians. Not good in the play pen etc.

Top
#3306476 - 03/09/14 08:02 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turlevette if currently we are using 50% of the tilled land in the corn belt to meet E10 requirements how much more land can we afford to be used for corn ethanol? How much oil are we actually replacing? If you weigh in the ethanol at only 2/3 energy and the oil used in production the amount has to be less than 5% of the oil normally used. There have to be better alternatives. If they don't exist that's where we need to do more research. This program only exist on the support of the mandate. The fact that California doesn't use it is testament of the havoc it has on our environment.

Top
#3307419 - 03/10/14 04:42 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turlevette if currently we are using 50% of the tilled land in the corn belt to meet E10 requirements how much more land can we afford to be used for corn ethanol? How much oil are we actually replacing? If you weigh in the ethanol at only 2/3 energy and the oil used in production the amount has to be less than 5% of the oil normally used. There have to be better alternatives. If they don't exist that's where we need to do more research. This program only exist on the support of the mandate. The fact that California doesn't use it is testament of the havoc it has on our environment.


I agree we can't produce it all here. If you read up to earlier posts, I keep saying we need to create a world ethanol market where there would be many countries producing ethanol which would bring many 3rd world countries out of poverty.

Ethanol is a fuel we can put in our cars right now. Pretty much anything will run on E85. Cars that are not designed for it would just need to be driven easily.

Top
#3307456 - 03/10/14 05:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turtlevette ethanol actually on a performance basis makes E10 more costly. How much energy is used in this process for such little gain. Putting all this land under till is not good for the environment. The fact it would disappear without the mandate must tell you something. Land needs to be used for food and we need to explore other alternatives. Natural gas by far would have been a better alternative and still today cost about 2/3 the cost of gasoline. This administration has really put this country behind by supporting programs like this.

Top
#3307820 - 03/10/14 11:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette ethanol actually on a performance basis makes E10 more costly. How much energy is used in this process for such little gain. Putting all this land under till is not good for the environment. The fact it would disappear without the mandate must tell you something. Land needs to be used for food and we need to explore other alternatives. Natural gas by far would have been a better alternative and still today cost about 2/3 the cost of gasoline. This administration has really put this country behind by supporting programs like this.


President Bush, President Obama, their research staffs, the EPA, and Congress obviously disagree with you. Oh and the majority of scientists and engineers not on the oil company payroll.

Top
#3307849 - 03/10/14 11:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3307861 - 03/10/14 11:36 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.


You've got some sort of placebo effect going on. Most people do not see a 5mpg difference. Or it could be you're getting something a little extra in the 91 or the metering on the pump is off.

But you're the same guy claiming a moly additive gets you 5 mpg too. Right?

Placebo. Wishful thinking.

Top
#3307874 - 03/10/14 11:53 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Just to be clear I've got no issues with ethanol as a fuel. Build be a car that runs on e-85,make it cost effective at the pumps and I'm all for it.
My problem is trying to mix it with gasoline.
For example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.
Now in my world that is significant and I'm not going for it. It costs me the same for both fuels but my net mileage drops significantly so I have to burn more fuel to achieve the same miles that pure gas gets me.
Please tell me how that benefits the environment. I've gotta burn significantly more fuel to achieve the same results. Even IF the ethanol treated fuel polluted less because I burn more to achieve the same result where is the trade off point where the ethanol fuel pollutes more because I need to burn more.


You've got some sort of placebo effect going on. Most people do not see a 5mpg difference. Or it could be you're getting something a little extra in the 91 or the metering on the pump is off.

But you're the same guy claiming a moly additive gets you 5 mpg too. Right?

Placebo. Wishful thinking.



It's no placebo.
And I proved mos2 worked over 12000 miles of tracking mileage. I live in my cars. I know every tick,creak and sound they make.
I know oil temp and pressure at any given speed and ambient temp. Whether you choose to believe me I really couldn't care less. I've got absolutely no reason to lie considering I don't care what the results are.
I'm not selling anything nor pushing anything,merely posting my observations based on driving in excess of 100 miles per day in my vehicle.
See I used to use Mohawk high test exclusively til about 4 years ago when I really started keeping track of my fuel consumption. Around the same time I began playing with acetone and tc-w3.
When I discovered just how much harder my vehicles were on fuel using ethanol high test vs premium.
And do tell how this placebo works when I push reset on the computer and instantly it tells me mpg. I guess the cars computer is placebo too.
Because my repeatable results don't fit with your tripe you've gotta try and deflect and bring up something else.
Well by all means bring it up. I've got a thread where I posted every single fuel fill up when I bought my charger. So I didn't even know what consumption was. I posted every single tank for 3000 miles before mos2 and I quit at over 6000 miles after mos2.
If you had read it it wasn't 5mpg. The average was 3. And it was repeatable.
So push your absurd views and bogus opinions on people without the mental capacity to question you because no one here is dumb enough to put the slightest bit of faith in any trash you write.
I collected and posted data. What have you got. Some copy and paste from lobbyist sites and propaganda. Why not try doing something actual instead of re-posting someone else's work.
Those who can do do. Those who can't teach.
Which are you,since I haven't seen much doing outta you I think the answer is clear.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3308485 - 03/11/14 04:43 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turtlevette after 35 years groups such as Environmental Working Group and Sierra Club oppose support for this program on the basis of a recent report from the National Research Council. The report states: "Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite." The current administrations people they have appointed to these staffs such as EPA or what ever are more or less yes men to the administration and in many cases are linked to campaign donations. With Obama wanting to be ahead of the curve on climate change you have to wonder how he can support this program. I think it has a lot to due with the promises he made campaigning in Iowa. One of the head lobbyist when given a speech recently made the comment that Obama needed to keep his promise. The amount of oil repaced by this program considering the amount of land used doesn't seem like enough to make it worth all the issues involved. The fact that it needs to be mandated to exist tells you what the consumer thinks of the product.

Top
#3308518 - 03/11/14 05:08 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
The fact that it needs to be mandated to exist tells you what the consumer thinks of the product.


There are a lot of mandates and laws for really good reasons. A mandate doesn't bother me at all. I don't know how old your are but when I was a kid PPG was putting so much yellow crud in the air it stunk within 10 miles of the place. I wish I could find pictures.

Top
#3308585 - 03/11/14 06:02 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turtlevette did you ever question why California gets their ethanol from Brazil. It's all about the environment and yes we should worry about PPG. Wouldn't you agree if there is solid proof this program is bad for the environment it should be ended. All you have to do is look at cellulosic ethanol that is mandated in this program to know how well thought out it was. 5 million acres of set aside for conservation have vanished on Obama's watch - more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite national parks combined. Most of this land was deemed ecologically fragile farmland and was set aside from regular crop planting. The environmental issues do exist and yes they are real just like PPG. Did corn ethanol producers ever challenge California's decision? That's a large amount of ethanol.

Top
#3308606 - 03/11/14 06:34 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
. The environmental issues do exist and yes they are real just like PPG.


Farming is like pumping poison into the atmosphere?

Where do you guy get your info?

Top
#3308707 - 03/11/14 08:18 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turtlevette I follow ethanol news as often as I can. I grew up on a farm and have relatives who farm. I am always looking for a good reason for ethanol. This decision by Bush rivals his search for weapons of mass destruction. For Obama he was looking for political votes. It's unbelievable the claims the corn lobby makes. Yes farming can be like pumping poison into the atmosphere when the gain is not enough to make it worth while. Nobody has an answer for California and yet the answer is obvious. California basically tells us that if it's not from a clean program they will not use. Nobody should be forced to use it. We as a government need to come up with good programs for farmers and put the land that was in set aside back.

Top
#3308955 - 03/12/14 01:18 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette I follow ethanol news as often as I can.


I just have to wonder about your motivations. All of your posts here are to campaign against ethanol. You don't want to talk motor oil?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3308961 - 03/12/14 01:43 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.

Top
#3308979 - 03/12/14 03:10 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

In my experience, using the same Mohawk fuel in my old Audi, I had reduced fuel economy. I wouldn't call it 20%, but I would definitely get fewer miles out of every tank of Mohawk than when I used Esso pure gas 91, and that was with some repeatable driving. Of course, whether or not it was actually statistically significant or if I missed other factors is another matter. Closer to 10% would be my guess, but that's getting into the background noise, really.

In any event, I haven't used it often enough in my G (they clobbered the Mohawk CAA rewards program) as I did in my Audi to see if it makes as much of an apparent difference in the G as it seemed to in the Audi.

Maybe I'll run a few tanks and see if I can notice anything. As for your suggestions about the higher octane or a different quality gas, that's certainly possible, too. Not that it matters much, but it's not a Top Tier station up here.

Perhaps Mohawk's 94 octane degrades quickly. Clevy has noticed other problems with it before, and I got one terrible tank in the Audi. It was to the point the car would barely idle. When I had my Lightning, though, I never had an issue nor had any noticeable difference in fuel economy.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3309460 - 03/12/14 01:59 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.


Top
#3309466 - 03/12/14 02:04 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.




Chevette?
Because we've proven your credibility is lacking nothing you write carries any weight.
Take your ball and go home.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309471 - 03/12/14 02:10 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309472 - 03/12/14 02:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3309474 - 03/12/14 02:12 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


Not just this thread.
He's entertaining though,like a 30 car pile up.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309479 - 03/12/14 02:24 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.

Top
#3309485 - 03/12/14 02:36 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2572
Loc: Upper Midwest
See, that's actually the problem. I do have a BSME with a minor in chemistry. I also worked for the chairman of the chemistry department for all four years as a lab tech doing assorted grunt work, including teaching a lab on fuels and lubricants.

That's why when I see statements like this it's like a red cape to a bull. I can't help but charge.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 189K
1996 Honda Accord, 203K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 304K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 224K

Top
#3309511 - 03/12/14 03:07 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: kschachn
See, that's actually the problem. I do have a BSME with a minor in chemistry. I also worked for the chairman of the chemistry department for all four years as a lab tech doing assorted grunt work, including teaching a lab on fuels and lubricants.

That's why when I see statements like this it's like a red cape to a bull. I can't help but charge.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.


You don't understand that for a gallon of gasoline some percentage is converted to work, and the rest is waste in the form of incomplete combustion, waste heat, friction, etc? You can't as easily lean gas out to 20/1 or more to get a more efficient burn and resulting more complete conversion of gasoline to energy. A fuel like ethanol might be able to burn much leaner thus converting more of the product to energy. I envision a lean burn mode kicking in when the cruise control is on or something similar.

example

1 gal gas = x btu
1 gal ethanol = .7x btu

if gas conversion is 60% we have .6 btu work
if ethanol conversion is 90$ we have .9*.7 btu = .63 btu

do you understand where I'm headed with this?



Top
#3309527 - 03/12/14 03:17 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.






More lies. You arent anything more that wind.
Skyship comes to mind.
Sunkship moved to Massachusetts.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309529 - 03/12/14 03:20 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Trolltlevette, you claim to be an engineer, but display no knowledge whatsoever of thermodynamic processes (efficiency limits), high temperature stoichiometry (your ctalyst statements), or even simple combustion (wick in glass bell experiments).

Anyone who does bring science to the table you belittle, call names, and dismiss as having an agenda.

Please demonstrate your argument, thermodynamicaly, and it doesn't have to be down to third grade level...bring it up to YOUR level of intelligence and training, and let the rest of us try to keep up.

Break out the thermodynamics texts, chemical texts, fast forward NOx production, flame propagation theory...bring it all.

Obama and Bush aren't scientists, they don't impress engineers (well most engineers)...you are.

Crack out the science, not rhetoric, and demonstrate to the best of your ability your understanding of actual science.

I promise to try to keep up, I'm OK at thermo and mechanical systems, and I'm sure kschachn can help me on the chemistry side.

Top
#3309536 - 03/12/14 03:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

example

1 gal gas = x btu
1 gal ethanol = .7x btu

if gas conversion is 60% we have .6 btu work
if ethanol conversion is 90$ we have .9*.7 btu = .63 btu

do you understand where I'm headed with this?


I rest my case...what's the thermal efficiency of a flying pig ?

That's not science, that's made up rubbish.

Bring actual science, notmade up rubbish.

Demonstrate HOW in both your examples, they can exceed Carnot efficiencies...then why one can be better than the other.

Top
#3309537 - 03/12/14 03:24 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Hey turt


Do tell. Where does one buy this more efficient engine that is so much more efficient at turning the crank.
Because here on earth we are limited to what can be purchased,or built.
I've got a geet engine in my garage. I'm trying to make it work with a generator.
But seeing as though I can't go buy one and had to build it where would the masses find this engine that converts fuel to motion so much more effectively.
See where I'm going with this.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309539 - 03/12/14 03:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Trolltlevette, you claim to be an engineer, but display no knowledge whatsoever of thermodynamic processes (efficiency limits), high temperature stoichiometry (your ctalyst statements), or even simple combustion (wick in glass bell experiments).

Anyone who does bring science to the table you belittle, call names, and dismiss as having an agenda.

Please demonstrate your argument, thermodynamicaly, and it doesn't have to be down to third grade level...bring it up to YOUR level of intelligence and training, and let the rest of us try to keep up.

Break out the thermodynamics texts, chemical texts, fast forward NOx production, flame propagation theory...bring it all.

Obama and Bush aren't scientists, they don't impress engineers (well most engineers)...you are.

Crack out the science, not rhetoric, and demonstrate to the best of your ability your understanding of actual science.

I promise to try to keep up, I'm OK at thermo and mechanical systems, and I'm sure kschachn can help me on the chemistry side.




And I'll keep watch on the bovine excrement side.
I got my backhoe warming up
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309606 - 03/12/14 04:21 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy
[
I got my backhoe warming up


yes, please stick to digging ditches. I am a firm believer that people should stick to what they understand.

An example is exactly that an example. Cut the assumed efficiencies in half if you must nitpick. None of you have used any detailed explanations in your posts. Just insults and throwing in various technical terms like carnot cycle without putting it in context of an explanation.

Bottom line, if we can get ethanol to burn leaner we'll get more mileage out of it. It may or may not approach the work output of gasoline but there is wiggle room.

Top
#3309647 - 03/12/14 05:03 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turlevette having fun! It seems to always happen when you have a corn ethanol lobbyist pushed into a corner they start talking about engines that don't exist. My agenda is help get the truth about corn ethanol to the surface. You have yet to give me a response about California on the reason they get theirs from Brazil. It's a shame main stream media doesn't get the news out on the scam corn ethanol is. We have to remember their the ones that helped get Obama reelected.

Top
#3309653 - 03/12/14 05:07 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
I heard that there are plans to produce ethanol in the CA Imperial Valley where they expect a higher return due to Colorado river water supplies and all year round growing.

Top
#3309655 - 03/12/14 05:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.


Not at all doubting methodology. More about attributing everything to ethanol rather than brand and octane level.

It is known that higher octane gas has less energy. And plenty of people have reported poor gas from certain brands. Hyper milers also report certain sweet spot speeds apparently related to torque.

So your 20% might be due to multiple factors not just ethanol.

Top
#3309657 - 03/12/14 05:14 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
An example is exactly that an example. Cut the assumed efficiencies in half if you must nitpick. None of you have used any detailed explanations in your posts. Just insults and throwing in various technical terms like carnot cycle without putting it in context of an explanation.


An example is only an example, particularly in a scientific discussion, if it factual, provable, and most importantly...not made up on the spot.

Halving made up numbers isn't nitpicking science, it's halving made up numbers...that you made up on the spot, to attempt to validate your ideas.

Now you are a scientist who has been struggling to dumb it down to third grade level.

Lash out, with science, with science that you clearly have mastery of, and blind us with it.

As I promised, we'll all try to keep up.

When talking efficiency, Carnot is one of the most basic of "technical" terms, one that most of us engineers would get if you used it, so don't be afraid of it.

Top
#3309669 - 03/12/14 05:33 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.


Not at all doubting methodology. More about attributing everything to ethanol rather than brand and octane level.

It is known that higher octane gas has less energy. And plenty of people have reported poor gas from certain brands. Hyper milers also report certain sweet spot speeds apparently related to torque.

So your 20% might be due to multiple factors not just ethanol.



I am not blaming ethanol as a whole. I'm merely stating my experiences using it.
My mustangs don't see as much of a mileage drop however the ecu isn't as sophisticated as my charger.
I will say with certainty that on 94 octane the car is more responsive at light throttle inputs.
WOT doesn't feel any different over premium gasoline however there might be a small increase in pull.
I've re-tuned the ecu with a tuner,the tune is the same on both fuels.
So yeah there could be more than just ethanol affecting the mpg however because I know that a single tank doesn't mean much I ran 3 full tanks before making any judgements.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309676 - 03/12/14 05:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts

Top
#3309685 - 03/12/14 05:43 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada


Mr copy and paste.
Got anything you did yourself or do you just regurgitate fluff pieces written up by lobby groups.
And I don't dig ditches there sweetie. I own/operate the largest non-union construction company in the city. 50 men depend on me and my money for their way of life.
So once you become a hotshot and come out of your moms basement then maybe I'd let you stand in my shadow,til then though your nothing but a little man with an agenda and no parts to implement it.
So enjoy your virtual credentials and your pretend corvette, I'll keep on keeping on here in the real world.
K
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3310119 - 03/13/14 01:56 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3310143 - 03/13/14 03:50 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Marco620 Offline


Registered: 02/25/14
Posts: 196
Loc: Midwest, Rural KS
Out here in kansas I can still buy regular gasoline and its worth the premium. I own a Direct injection car and it run so much better on it. There is a rumor that 91 octane doesn't have any ethanol but it hasn't got warm enough here to warrant buying that expensive jungle juice just to avoid ethanol. Its horrible in the winter too. I used to managed a Sherwin Williams and when I was there many people were buying toloulene to boost octane and mileage. Also had a bunch of druggies trying to buy it to make meth. I can honestly say that just plain fuel idled better and worked better all around. If E10 or whatever was better why in the 80's/90's were nissan sentra and honda crx getting almost 50mpg no problem. I dont think E10 was around then and nobody was unhappy. If its not broke don't fix it. Bring back pure petoleum and all the missing corncobs from the ethanol grab lol.

Top
#3311084 - 03/13/14 09:02 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Marco620]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Marco620
and all the missing corncobs lol.


I think I got an idea where they are.

Top
#3311175 - 03/13/14 09:58 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.



2 people sharing similar experiences running the same brand and grade fuel in 2 different cities.
Imagine that.

Like I've said many times,ethanol per say doesn't bother me. Getting less miles per tank on the same dollar does. That's my only motivator and the single most important reason I use shell premium,petro Canada premium or co-op premium.
those brands of fuel give me nearly identical fuel consumption numbers with a very slight(barely perceptible,possibly just noise)edge going to shell fuels for total miles per tank calculated by how much volume was replaced into the tank.
So for me,because I have a choice,and the cost is the same,I buy ethanol free fuel. Its simple math,dollars and nickels(no more pennies here).
It wouldn't even be a big deal if it wasn't for the fact my total commute is a combined 100 miles a day. So even 40 extra miles per tank is significant because its almost half my daily mileage.
So if I multiply that over a week its 1 extra days commute,then 4 extra days a month,which is almost a whole extra week of getting to work and back.
Then multiply that over a year and its a month and a half of round trips that I lose if I run ethanol flavoured premium.
Doing the math at 85 dollars a tank,a tank lasts 3 days if running ethanol so that's 15 tanks of fuel in that month and a half of work days now just cost me an extra 1400 a year in fuel by running 94 octane 10% ethanol blended fuel vs premium pure gas.
That's a weeks pay extra,just in fuel if I used ethanol blended fuel so in my case only a retard would use it,unless I just want to burn money.
Not to mention the extra pollution those 15 tanks put into the air,even if ethanol pollutes less because I'm burning more of it where exactly is the environmental benefit.
There isn't any. Only a fool would use that stuff if there was a choice,unless the cost was lower which means cost per mile would need to be established then a decision made based on the fiscal realities.
If ethanol cost me less,and by the time a cost per mile was figured out I'd be happy to use the stuff if my cost per mile was less than gasoline however here ethanol blended premium and pure gasoline cost the same,so the ethanol costs more per mile to use.
Which means only a retard would use it. It's just that simple.
Make it cheaper per mile and I'll gladly use it.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3311180 - 03/13/14 10:01 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
Clevy Online   happy


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7216
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.



What. You claim to be some kind of engineer or authority on ethanol yet you don't know the BTU difference between ethanol and gasoline.
The make up and big red nose suit you.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3311306 - 03/14/14 12:48 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy
The make up and big red nose suit you.



Originally Posted By: Marco620

and all the missing corncobs lol.


I think I got an idea where they are.

Top
#3311387 - 03/14/14 06:17 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 1019
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Clevy

Make it cheaper per mile and I'll gladly use it.

Oh look, common sense.

If politics and special interest wouldn't have gotten involved ethanol would have probably been a good deal for everyone. People in the corn belt would be enjoying cheap local E85 and the rest of us would get a price break on gas because of the lower demand. E10 for all was the worst possible solution.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3311392 - 03/14/14 06:23 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
That's what's so stupid down here...

Grain lobby lunch with politicians, to force a mandate, and the cost per mile of ethanol "enhanced" fuel increases 3% before you take into account the easily recognisable BTU difference (4c/L reduction at $1/L fuel cost, payable under stoichiometric conditions, is now 2c reduction at $1.60)...it won't pay for itself to the user.

Top
#3311561 - 03/14/14 09:42 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14790
Loc: Sunny Florida
How many here have seen the Inspector General's report on the EPA?

Since many here defend them as a wonderful example of Governmental supervision.

And this is just for Tooter the Turtle with apologies in advance to the credible engineers here. TV, you may wish to note that while you were polishing up your dubious engineering studies both Clevy and I were out building businesses. We both earn far more money than almost any engineer and were doing it LONG before you got out of school.

Our style of smarts creates jobs for others and builds the economy while paying HUGE amounts of taxes into this Gov that you love so much. We are arguably greater contributors to your country than you yourself.

Chew on that, as I and many others here are very tired of the personal attacks and the complete baloney that you bring here.

And take a minute to read the IG report on the EPA, I'd love to hear a rational and intelligent comment on that one...


Edited by SteveSRT8 (03/14/14 09:54 AM)
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3311788 - 03/14/14 12:55 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That's what's so stupid down here...

Grain lobby lunch with politicians, to force a mandate, and the cost per mile of ethanol "enhanced" fuel increases 3% before you take into account the easily recognisable BTU difference (4c/L reduction at $1/L fuel cost, payable under stoichiometric conditions, is now 2c reduction at $1.60)...it won't pay for itself to the user.


Are you in Australia? You have a corn lobby?

You keep trying to say that you can burn any dirty fuel and as long as you are at stoichiometric burn, it's clean and there's nothing to worry about. I think you're fairly sharp so I get disappointed when you put stuff out there that I know you know is wrong.
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3312045 - 03/14/14 05:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
read what I said...grain...there's more than one of them.

It's worse than a typical lobby, it's a company that controls most of the grain, and nearly all of the ethanol.

You keep referring to petroleum fuels as "dirty"...where do you get that from ?

You claim that ethanol doesn't need catalysts, yet have repeatedly refused to explain how NOx and high temperature equilibrium fails to occur with ethanol...laminar burning under rich conditions at atmospheric pressure under a glass bell is nothing like the conditions in a combustion chamber...and you keep presenting that as why ethanol is "clean".

Please explain (without bell jars and matches) how ethanol can be birned without needing catalysts like "dirty" petroleum does....I'm sure the nation of Brazil would like to know what they are doing wrong.

http://www.jbcs.sbq.org.br/imagebank/pdf/v1n3-07.pdf

Top
#3312059 - 03/14/14 05:50 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: SteveSRT8]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And this is just for Tooter the Turtle with apologies in advance to the credible engineers here. TV, you may wish to note that while you were polishing up your dubious engineering studies both Clevy and I were out building businesses. We both earn far more money than almost any engineer and were doing it LONG before you got out of school.

Our style of smarts creates jobs for others and builds the economy while paying HUGE amounts of taxes into this Gov that you love so much. We are arguably greater contributors to your country than you yourself.


OT ... my favourite humans that ever existed were Sir Harry Ricardo, Smokey Yunick, and Bruce Dickinson (Should be a "sir" IMO)

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3312058#Post3312058

Top
#3312060 - 03/14/14 05:53 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You keep referring to petroleum fuels as "dirty"...where do you get that from ?

You claim that ethanol doesn't need catalysts, yet have repeatedly refused to explain how NOx and high temperature equilibrium fails to occur with ethanol...laminar burning under rich conditions at atmospheric pressure under a glass bell is nothing like the conditions in a combustion chamber...and you keep presenting that as why ethanol is "clean".

Please explain (without bell jars and matches) how ethanol can be birned without needing catalysts like "dirty" petroleum does....I'm sure the nation of Brazil would like to know what they are doing wrong.



The U.S. government. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/emissions_pollutants.html#air

We've been using the stuff for 30 years. You're right and the U.S. government is wrong?

Brazil is burning their rain forest. It's not from ethanol pollution.

Man you've really got it bad.

Top
#3312069 - 03/14/14 06:06 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
LOL LOL LOL

your link goes straight to acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, 1,3-Butadiene and benzene.

The first two are notably increased by the combustion of ethanol...

As to Brazil's pollution...you are delusional...I ask again, if ethanol is so pure and clean, why they need catalysts (I provided a link, but you ignored it).

Top
#3312074 - 03/14/14 06:12 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
...you are delusional...I ask again, if ethanol is so pure and clean, why they need catalysts (I provided a link, but you ignored it).


I'm delusional, the U.S. government is delusional, all the major environmental scientists are delusional. The Aussie government is delusional. Brazil is delusional.

Oh well, I'm in good company.

You probably don't believe in global warming either.

Go check these guys out. You'll fit right in there.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/politics-religion-and-controversy-88/




Top
#3312079 - 03/14/14 06:16 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island


As to global warming, nice introduction to a strawman argument, and if you pay attention, you can actually find my views, here on BITOG.

Back to the topic...

IF ethanol is so clean and pure, why does Brazil still use catalysts ?

Top
#3312132 - 03/14/14 07:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Shannow
IF ethanol is so clean and pure, why does Brazil still use catalysts ?

Because all cars come with them anyway. Did you take a look at those wackjobs in the link?

Top
#3312136 - 03/14/14 07:19 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
I can't believe that they call you a troll over there...what are they thinking ?

It's pretty easy to build a car without a cat converter...you just don't put one on, and save a few hundred bucks...there's a reason that they use them, and it's not just "all cars come with them".

http://www.jbcs.sbq.org.br/imagebank/pdf/v1n3-07.pdf (again)

Top
#3312508 - 03/15/14 07:55 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Like I've said many times,ethanol per say doesn't bother me. Getting less miles per tank on the same dollar does.

More importantly, it's not even the same dollar. Husky/Mohawk's 94 is more than the other stations' 91. That makes it a little harder to swallow.

Shannow: Here's a question about catalytic converts as original equipment. Up here, when factory LPG vehicles were around, they tended not to have cats (and cats were relatively new anyhow). I don't know if the regulation ever changed with respect to that, as the factory LPG vehicle died out a lot of years ago. What's been your experience down there in that respect?
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3312958 - 03/15/14 05:33 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26522
Loc: a prison island
Gas only still has cats, as the temperatures of combustion still produce NOx, CO, and HC...

Top
#3314445 - 03/17/14 02:15 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11405
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Of course, I never had the chance to actually look at any of the last Ford factory LPG vehicles. Mine certainly didn't, but was nowhere near the end of their run with such vehicles.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3317804 - 03/20/14 08:05 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
Papa Bear Offline


Registered: 08/11/05
Posts: 6067
Loc: Leamington, ON, Canada ..... r...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... my favourite humans that ever existed were Sir Harry Ricardo, Smokey Yunick, and Bruce Dickinson (Should be a "sir" IMO)



I have often attained "cur" status but the "sir" so far has eluded me ..... cool
_________________________
"Over 6,000 posts... about 30 of them good ones" coffee


2007 Uplander .. ST dino, NAPA Pro-Select filter (more than sufficient)


Top
#3393772 - 06/10/14 08:42 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Benzadmiral Offline


Registered: 10/12/05
Posts: 3627
Loc: New Orleans
I've been running E0 in my cars for several years. The stuff is getting harder to find, and even harder to find at a reasonable cost (i.e., not greater than the % increase in gas mileage). Right now I'm having to run the A/C a lot, and will be until December, probably, so my mileage is off anyway.

My plan is to stick with one E0 station for two complete fillups, see what I get (my weekly driving schedule doesn't vary much in the summer), then try another E0 for the same length of time. Then I'll fill up with Walmart's E10, the lowest priced stuff in town, and compare. (Not a scientific test, no . . . but it keeps me entertained.)
_________________________
* *
-- Paul W. (The Benzadmiral)
('11 Buick Regal CXL, charcoal/cream, 2.4L NA)

Top
#3403178 - 06/21/14 05:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TiredTrucker Online   content


Registered: 01/04/08
Posts: 988
Loc: Kellogg, IA
I think the E10 vs E0 thing really gets skewed so that the pricing is such that it makes it hard to compare the cost per mile based on the fuel. Since E10 gets mandated by various governmental agencies, the price really gets out of kilter, in that with the degraded mpg many experience with E10 compared to E0, the prices are not spread based on real market values enough to reflect that and make E10 a cost effective solution.

Seems the true value of using ethanol is realized when you get to the higher blends, where there is not really any mandates and less government meddling with pricing. That is why I like blender pumps in my area. I can get, E0 (regular and premium), E10 (regular and premium), E15, E20, E30 and E85... all at the same pump. I can compare pricing, I have run all of them and know the mpg I get from each one, and I can then see which offers me the lowest cost per mile to use and make that selection based on that day's price spread. E30 has shown to be the best overall value most times. I don't get much less mpg using E30 compared to E10, but the price is generally 10-15 cents a gallon cheaper. E85, mpg takes a major hit, so the price has to be 70-80 cents a gallon less than gas to make it worth while.

I just like having a flex fuel vehicle so that I can play around with all the various blends and find which works the best and has the lowest cost per mile.
_________________________
Hey there, VA, what do ya say? How many vets did you kill today?

Top
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 ... 13 14 >