Study: New E15 gas can ruin auto engines
- Thread starter mikered30
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,608
So are they yanking it off the market? Glad I have a diesel
What cars were they using as test mules? What years are most susceptible or are some manufacturers more prone to failure then others and what parts were failing.
And we're they retuned for that mix?
I think at that level achohol every vehicle on the road would need to be tuned for it,don't the flex fuels have 2 tunes. Are flex fuel vehicles self adapting,do they, when when e-85 is in the tank modify their tuning themselves or does the driver do something to tell the car that e-85 is in the tank?
Mmo or tc-w3 in the tank guys or everything will chemically dry right out.
Just my opinion.
And we're they retuned for that mix?
I think at that level achohol every vehicle on the road would need to be tuned for it,don't the flex fuels have 2 tunes. Are flex fuel vehicles self adapting,do they, when when e-85 is in the tank modify their tuning themselves or does the driver do something to tell the car that e-85 is in the tank?
Mmo or tc-w3 in the tank guys or everything will chemically dry right out.
Just my opinion.
I'm pretty sure that flex vehicles are designed so that they can compensate for whatever amount of alcohol is in the fuel. Here we can only get e10. I don't think another 5% is going to blow up engines. It may effect mpg, my jeep has never had pure gas so I can't compare e10 to pure gas
I'm against e15. I'm against e10.
I was finally able to fill up with pure gas recently after I saw the new gas pump at a local gas station I frequently use. I saw improvement in engine performance with the first fill up and has mileage went up.
The second fill up showed improvements as well.
I then went back to "regular gas" (e10) and everything instantly went backwards...
The car in question is a 2006 Scion tC and a 1990 Mazda RX-7 non turbo.
The gas used was 89 octane in both e10 and pure juice.
I was finally able to fill up with pure gas recently after I saw the new gas pump at a local gas station I frequently use. I saw improvement in engine performance with the first fill up and has mileage went up.
The second fill up showed improvements as well.
I then went back to "regular gas" (e10) and everything instantly went backwards...
The car in question is a 2006 Scion tC and a 1990 Mazda RX-7 non turbo.
The gas used was 89 octane in both e10 and pure juice.
As soon as I fill up on E10, my back hurts. When I change back, I feel great again.
PROOF E10 IS EVIL.
PROOF E10 IS EVIL.
We really need some unbiased detailed lab investigation. Asking the opinion from dino fuel manufactures and farmers, who sell ethanol is a joke. Ed
What cars/engines? It won't hurt most recent cars. There are a number of Fits and Cruzes running around on E85 with no ill effects on the engines/fuel systems.
I'd run flex-fuel if my engine was designed for it. I have seen it a few places and its maybe $1.00 a gallon less. But need to factor in the poorer mileage to come up with a cost per mile.
I am against using food products (corn) to make ethanol. If they need to make ethanol make it out of things that are weeds or waste. There are many things one can use to make ethanol. Corn should be used for food and feed.
I am against using food products (corn) to make ethanol. If they need to make ethanol make it out of things that are weeds or waste. There are many things one can use to make ethanol. Corn should be used for food and feed.
even if the gov or any one else, DID test e10 or e15. they would lie to you about it. they lied to you about leaded gas.
Originally Posted By: morris
even if the gov or any one else, DID test e10 or e15. they would lie to you about it. they lied to you about leaded gas.
What lie did the government tell us about leaded gas? I know that leaded gas was bad for the spark plugs, requiring changes every 10 or 12 thousand miles. Muffler and tail pipes only lasted about 25% as long as they do now. The main reason was the fact that leaded gas would almost instantly ruin a catalytic converter.
even if the gov or any one else, DID test e10 or e15. they would lie to you about it. they lied to you about leaded gas.
What lie did the government tell us about leaded gas? I know that leaded gas was bad for the spark plugs, requiring changes every 10 or 12 thousand miles. Muffler and tail pipes only lasted about 25% as long as they do now. The main reason was the fact that leaded gas would almost instantly ruin a catalytic converter.
IIRC, the main reason Lead was removed from gasoline was too much Lead was accumulating in the environment. Seems like some kids, mostly in large cities, had damaging levels in their bodies/brains. They took Lead out of house paint in mid 1970's for a similar reason. Some kids were eating peeling Lead paint.
Oh yeah, I don't care for any alcohol in gasoline.
Oh yeah, I don't care for any alcohol in gasoline.
o.o plus they aren't going to force you to buy anything. The actual idea was to have another blender pump like for e85. since it says its ok for 2000 plus cars. So your cheap craftsman dirty running 2 stroke chainsaw that has a carb made of plastic that just melts when comes in contact with ethanol. how about you tell your manufactor that your tired of their cheap [censored].
We better get used to it. The government is investing $ millions in algae farms for producing ethanol. This I am all for, I am totally against using corn or sugar that in turn affects our food costs, etc. I have a feeling that the government will mandate every vehicle be E85 capable off the assembley line soon. Mark my words.
Originally Posted By: mikered30
Something most of us already suspected.
Something some of us already knew: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2709877#Post2709877
Something most of us already suspected.
Something some of us already knew: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2709877#Post2709877
Originally Posted By: Diesel1
Do you not understand how science works? you would make up for the lower fuel economy by increasing the timing. Plus e85 wont knock under some extreme conditions. for example 40*btdc at a crazy temp compared to gas.
If this statement about timing were true, why do the manufacturers not know about it and set their engine computers to advance timing and prevent the +30% drop in fuel economy when E85 is used? I guess they don't understand how science works either.
Do you not understand how science works? you would make up for the lower fuel economy by increasing the timing. Plus e85 wont knock under some extreme conditions. for example 40*btdc at a crazy temp compared to gas.
If this statement about timing were true, why do the manufacturers not know about it and set their engine computers to advance timing and prevent the +30% drop in fuel economy when E85 is used? I guess they don't understand how science works either.
Originally Posted By: Diesel1
Do you not understand how science works? you would make up for the lower fuel economy by increasing the timing. Plus e85 wont knock under some extreme conditions. for example 40*btdc at a crazy temp compared to gas.
Science says that there's less Calories in the tank...exercise and calories mean that the tank goes down faster.
That's the simplest rule of physics.
Compression and ignition mean that the engine can gain back a part of the loss. Bit the fact remains that there are less calories in the tank, and thermal efficiency gains of a couple of percent can't claw that back...It may allow the car to accelerate like a dog shot in the backside, but that's not economy.
Flex fuel may give the best economy on any given blend of fuel, but it can't make up for the fact that there's less calories per tank.
Do you not understand how science works? you would make up for the lower fuel economy by increasing the timing. Plus e85 wont knock under some extreme conditions. for example 40*btdc at a crazy temp compared to gas.
Science says that there's less Calories in the tank...exercise and calories mean that the tank goes down faster.
That's the simplest rule of physics.
Compression and ignition mean that the engine can gain back a part of the loss. Bit the fact remains that there are less calories in the tank, and thermal efficiency gains of a couple of percent can't claw that back...It may allow the car to accelerate like a dog shot in the backside, but that's not economy.
Flex fuel may give the best economy on any given blend of fuel, but it can't make up for the fact that there's less calories per tank.
- Status
Similar threads
