Get ready for E15. The push is real...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OilFilters said:
I guess they need to be taught a lesson. It's not only labeled as "warning" E15, it's also labeled as 88 octane instead of 87 which should raise an eyebrow, and even worse...it

Color doesn't mean much either. Sure diesel is usually green but there isn't a legal standard for handle color. As far as I'm concerned it is much too easy to confuse the E15 on the pump. Generally here it isn't segregated off to the side or anything, it's right in between the regular and premium grades. Is the DEF nozzle the same size, right between two grades of gasoline and on the same pump?

You seem to like calling people "stupid" and needing to be "taught a lesson" or "slapped". What is your agenda here?


I put e15 88 in my 1970’s lawn mower, starts and runs as expected, my guess is the carb will need cleaning next year as it does every year. If anything exhaust stunk a little less.

As for pump colors.

There was a time when “informally” the fuel handle would match the legally required container color for the fuel
Red Gas
Yellow Diesel
Blue Kerosene
Green, oil or fuel mixes
And I forget for methanol, it’s dyed blue but seems to come in white or purple containers

And yes, maybe regional but yellow was always diesel around here until the early 2ks.

I even had a gas attendant prevent me from buying some diesel fuel to Prime my 6.2 that I had just changed filters on because my tank was the wrong color, painted it came back filled and the paint was peeling by the time I was home.

As much as I hate big brother perhaps the handle should match the container and ethanol should get one of the colors or some stripe pattern ?

Ah well
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Any manufacturer who cannot build an engine that can handle e15 is incompetent.

5% can't matter that much. Common sense.

Is it okay to run it in any of my vehicles?
 
E10 has been available in some parts of the USA since at least the mid 80s. GM issued a TSB in 1986 saying that their vehicles are capable of using E10 gasoline.
 
Well, E85 mixed 50/50 with E10 so as not to cause a lean code.

Unless some parts of the fuel system are water-soluble, you don't need to worry about ethanol dissolving them.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Any manufacturer who cannot build an engine that can handle e15 is incompetent. 5% can't matter that much. Common sense.


Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Yes. If there was some crisis you could run e85 in almost anything. Too much anal retention


Not every vehicle on the road was built after 2001. Many manufacturers will void the warranty if anything over E10 is put into the fuel tank. Yes I know those older vehicle warranties have mostly expired anyway, but I hope you get my point. Many late model motorcycles and other small engines (warranty still intact) also do not allow anything over E10 or the warranty is void.

But what bugs me most is the lower energy content and resulting lower fuel economy. Also it does not make any sense to create higher emissions, pollution, and environmental degradation elsewhere in exchange for lower emissions at the tailpipe. I guess "more jobs" is the only real justification for corn fuels.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Any manufacturer who cannot build an engine that can handle e15 is incompetent.

Absolutely. If a company can make flex fueled vehicles, E15 should be a breeze.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
5% can't matter that much. Common sense.

But, going from 10% ethanol to 15% ethanol is a 50% increase.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
5% can't matter that much. Common sense.

But, going from 10% ethanol to 15% ethanol is a 50% increase.


Another 2.5% (ish) change in stoichiometry, on top of an already 5% change.

Saying that because 5% was easy that another 2.5% can't matter much...all vehicles, all driving conditions, all vehicle conditions displays not much knowledge of the differences themselves.

Elastomers and materials are the "easy" bit.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: nap
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/

But but but...


What’s unfortunate is that ethanol can easily be made from other things more efficiently
Thousands of tons of potato’s are waste but because they have no lobby the waste isn’t made into ethanol

Further ethanol can be made the “old slow way” in the summer using 1/10 the energy of the highly energy intense automated way.

But again we as a country like everything
Fast
Easy
Wasteful
 
Regardless of how it's made the point remains that it is unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful and unneeded.

Originally Posted By: Rmay635703
What’s unfortunate is that ethanol can easily be made from other things more efficiently
Thousands of tons of potato’s are waste but because they have no lobby the waste isn’t made into ethanol

Further ethanol can be made the “old slow way” in the summer using 1/10 the energy of the highly energy intense automated way.

But again we as a country like everything
Fast
Easy
Wasteful
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Elastomers and materials are the "easy" bit.

Yes, my point is about materials and then sensors able to adjust fueling mixtures as needed. I'm not saying anything as to whether or not more ethanol should be used, but that it certainly can be.
 
upgrades are easy on my nova to run either e15 or e85 but i prefer the fuel economy using ethanol free it is getting close to 21 highway on E0.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
If we didn't waste all the ethanol in E10 and other scams we'd have plenty for E85 for a competitive price vs gasoline. I'd have no problem running E85 if it saved me money.


Depends on location. E85 has had a significant price spread between E0 and E10 in my area that my 2015 2500 6.0 has been on E85 since last fall. Price spreads have averaged between 80 and 90 cents lower for E85. Sure, lower mpg, but also lower cost per mile to use. Just like everyone else, I like higher mpg. It feels better. But the businessman in me can easily look past that and evaluate the cost per mile. And E85 has been giving a lower cost per mile to use for 3/4 of a year now in my area.

The wife's 2006 Cadillac has been on E15 for a while. Not any appreciable mpg difference than E10, but 5 cents a gallon cheaper.
 
Originally Posted By: Rmay635703
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: nap
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/

But but but...


What’s unfortunate is that ethanol can easily be made from other things more efficiently
Thousands of tons of potato’s are waste but because they have no lobby the waste isn’t made into ethanol

Further ethanol can be made the “old slow way” in the summer using 1/10 the energy of the highly energy intense automated way.

But again we as a country like everything
Fast
Easy
Wasteful


Sugar beets always comes to mind when I think about source stock that could be used for ethanol production.

Doesn't really matter. Corn prices, on an inflation adjusted basis, are lower than they were in the mid 1990's. Only 20% of the corn crop is targeted for human consumption. Of the remaining 80%, only 40% of that is used for ethanol production and even then, of every bushel of corn that goes into ethanol production, 17-18 lbs of high protein feed supplement comes out the other end. Along with various polymers and other items from ethanol processing.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Regardless of how it's made the point remains that it is unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful and unneeded.



When oil hits 150 a barrel, say that again.
 
Speaking of price, what mechanism prevents ethanol producers to jack up the prices when they see fit?
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Regardless of how it's made the point remains that it is unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful and unneeded.



When oil hits 150 a barrel, say that again.


IF it genuinely resulted in less oil being burned (farms and trucks don't run on it) the energy balance is debatable.

IF the customer broke even with the mileage hit

IF the outcomes weren't being driven by industry/farm lobbyists, but were based on science, and the above.

THEN you could say "fair enough, let the market decide.

WHEN the energy balance is questionable
WHEN the policy is being "guided" (to be nice) by Lobbyists
WHEN they don't price it such that the consumer breaks even,

THEN you can say that it's wasteful, unnecessary, and ultimately unhelpful (remember the guy you were responding to understands science and chemistry, not feel good propaganda.

WRT pricing.

When it was introduced to Australia, gas was $1/litre, and you got 4c off for ethanol. The price paid for the energy in the tank that you weren't getting.
Now it's $1.40 (and has bee $1.70) and the gap is 3c mostly 4c if you are lucky. So the consumer is getting shafted...even if the costs of ethanol production stayed constant, the gap, seeing as it's missing oil from your tank should naturally cover the missing energy at the very minimum...it should be moreso with higher gas prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top