Hey guys! Prepare for more corn in your gas tank!

Spectre said:
Can we defund the EPA until they get a clue now?

Also, that takes out ALL of my vehicles. Every single one of them says DO NOT OPERATE WITH GAS THAT HAS MORE THAN 10% ETHANOL in the manual.

We tried this before under Carter and it was a huge disaster. Most cars, even today, have that same warning in their manuals in big bold type. I am pretty sure I trust my car's maker to know what fuel it can and should run on a lot more than the government.

Oh, and that immediately hoses everyone with a forced induction motor. Niiice.

EPA: "It's okay to put more corn in them, because if they stop running or catch fire you'll have to buy a new Government Motors vehicle - which coincidentally just happens to be one of the few makers supporting this new blend!"
Click to expand...


So, if any of you guys came here, none of your vehicles cold be filled with the E80 we usually have?
Anyone knows what modifications are made imports so they can use that blend?
Aren?t forced induction engines supposed to work better with ethanol since it is higher octane? At least people around here convert turbocharged cars to run on E100 to achieve more power.

It just occured me: is it because USA uses corn ethanol and we use sugarcane ethanol or in the end it?s all the same thing?
 
I believe they blend the ethanol for lower octane fuel in the first place so the end octane is the same as before.
If the engine is made for the E100 it can make much more power because of the higher octane 100% ethanol has.

We have only E5 and E10 and even it's giving me a headache. Sure I won't touch the E10 but even the E5 is a bit too much ethanol for our Charger.
Last year we still had E0 Shell VPower which was hands down the most expensive fuel but it didn't have the ethanol in it. Now it's ruined with 5% of ethanol.
 
Spectre said:
You mean other than the whole "they contain toxic mercury" thing? And that most people won't be disposing of them in 'approved toxic waste disposal' methods? Most of the ones that break or burn out get tossed in the trash and from there go into landfills. And from there, once they inevitably break, if they haven't already, their 'tiny' little bit of mercury leaks out. Problem is, there's thousands of the things that get thrown away every day. 'Tiny' times 'thousands per day' equals 'significant amounts' in not a lot of time.

At which point, you suddenly have mercury in the soil, mercury in the ground water (the stuff you drink) and if someone disturbs the landfill, mercury in the air. Health effects of mercury. Yes, they include madness (why do you think the Mad Hatter was mad?), brain dysfunction, and death.

If you want to see how the mechanism works, look into the story of how 'tiny' spills of gasoline lead to shocking percentages of MTBE showing up in the watershed. Same story all over again, right down to the same bunch of idiots rejecting the Dow Chemical company's lead fuel additive replacement (which was bismuth based and non-toxic) and instead mandating MTBE - because they thought Dow was evil. Please note the health effects of MTBE, especially the part where the EPA (who was championing MTBE back when) grudgingly admits that it does look like it's a carcinogen at higher doses... i.e., a cumulative dose, because your body does not get rid of MTBE particularly fast.

Hope you like mercury in your drinking water.

That doesn't even go into the chilling effect it's had on the development of better lightbulbs in the US. The US-based developers all cancelled their programs or moved them offshore. Once again, another idiot equipment instead of performance standard. If you can get an incandescent bulb down to the power consumption of a CFL or less, why shouldn't it be allowed? But nooooooo....
Click to expand...

And I just wanna add to this CFL bulb BS too.

In my new build apartment, All the light fittings are some awful BC-3 fitting made by MEM. Its just like a regular 2 prong bayonet, but its got 3 prongs and on first inspection, it looks like you can fit a 2 prong bulb in because the opposing slots are almost exactly opposite each other. However, one is off set just the right amount of degrees so that you cant put a BC-2 2 prong bulb in. Now the reason for this, is the governmnet forcing people to forget buying incandescents. Now thats a decent enough idea I suppose, get everyone using less energy, but as usual our government instead of giving you and incentive, they get the stick out and try force it. So theyve signed this deal with MEM to supply these new BC-3 fittings to put in to new builds.

Now thats not such a problem if you can go buy these bulbs in say HomeBase, or B & Q and that they are a comparable price to the current BC-2 and screw cap CFL bulbs. But they arent, on both counts. You have to order them from a small group of suppliers and to add insult to injury, they are ?10 a pop. Now when a light goes out, you want to go to the shops an get one asap. Ordering off the internet doesnt do this for you. Secondly, ten friggin pounds!!! E-On and Phillips will sell you a BC-2 CFL bulb for a mere 29p.

So you know, its a decent idea, but as usual with the government its forced on you and someones more concerned with lining their pockets at your expense than really saving energy.
 
Redliner said:
So, if any of you guys came here, none of your vehicles cold be filled with the E80 we usually have?
Anyone knows what modifications are made imports so they can use that blend?
Aren?t forced induction engines supposed to work better with ethanol since it is higher octane? At least people around here convert turbocharged cars to run on E100 to achieve more power.

It just occured me: is it because USA uses corn ethanol and we use sugarcane ethanol or in the end it?s all the same thing?
Click to expand...

Nope, none of my cars would run on it.

In order to convert to a higher ethanol content, you would need to:
Change fuel injectors
Change fuel pump
Change every single piece of hose and rubber in the system
Change the fuel hardlines to stainless steel
(Possibly) change the fuel tank
Change the fuel tank pickups
Change the fuel pressure regulator
Change the spark plugs (good luck figuring out the heat range).
Remap the ECU (which isn't actually possible on at least one of my cars, since it's analog)

Oh, and by the way, still meet the same emissions. Which isn't going to happen; at higher alcohol contents, certain emissions get worse. And many of the parts I would need, even on my 'mainstream' vehicle, simply are not available off the shelf in ethanol-tolerant versions. Failure to do any of the above results in a car that will have fuel leaks and potentially a ruined engine. Compliance... can still mean a ruined engine. You really have to build with alcohol in mind from the start for it to work out well.
 
Last edited:
This does not worry me too much since I rarely see anyone selling the ethanol stuff they have now.

On the topic of the stupid fucking lightbulbs, they don't even work with a lot of the wiring in my house. The overhead light in my room will either get stuck on or stuck off if I put one of those things in it.
 
katwalk said:
This does not worry me too much since I rarely see anyone selling the ethanol stuff they have now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately over here I have yet to see E0. It's all E10. :(
 
Spectre said:
Nope, none of my cars would run on it.

In order to convert to a higher ethanol content, you would need to:
Change fuel injectors
Change fuel pump
Change every single piece of hose and rubber in the system
Change the fuel hardlines to stainless steel
(Possibly) change the fuel tank
Change the fuel tank pickups
Change the fuel pressure regulator
Change the spark plugs (good luck figuring out the heat range).
Remap the ECU (which isn't actually possible on at least one of my cars, since it's analog)

Oh, and by the way, still meet the same emissions. Which isn't going to happen; at higher alcohol contents, certain emissions get worse. And many of the parts I would need, even on my 'mainstream' vehicle, simply are not available off the shelf in ethanol-tolerant versions. Failure to do any of the above results in a car that will have fuel leaks and potentially a ruined engine. Compliance... can still mean a ruined engine. You really have to build with alcohol in mind from the start for it to work out well.
Click to expand...


OK, OK, I know all of that, but my doubt lies in this: since 1995, it became legal to import new cars, and since then, we have import cars from EVERYWHERE, and most of them get no modifications AT ALL to use our E20 (suspensions and wheel size/tire profile are changed sometimes, but only when it?s a high volume operation, like FIAT, or VW) and I NEVER heard of problems because of that. Of course, when you use that blend, you lose a little bit of power compared to the country of origin, but it?s a few hp and a little less MPG.
Is it because cars from the late 90?s can take this blend? Is it because our ethanol is made from sugar cane?
I am not saying you guys are lying or misinformed, but it just doesn?t add up to my own experience.
 
Redliner said:
OK, OK, I know all of that, but my doubt lies in this: since 1995, it became legal to import new cars, and since then, we have import cars from EVERYWHERE, and most of them get no modifications AT ALL to use our E20 (suspensions and wheel size/tire profile are changed sometimes, but only when it?s a high volume operation, like FIAT, or VW) and I NEVER heard of problems because of that. Of course, when you use that blend, you lose a little bit of power compared to the country of origin, but it?s a few hp and a little less MPG.
Is it because cars from the late 90?s can take this blend? Is it because our ethanol is made from sugar cane?
I am not saying you guys are lying or misinformed, but it just doesn?t add up to my own experience.
Click to expand...

I remember reading on Allpar (or wikipedia...not sure) about similar cars (Dodge spirit/Plymouth acclaim) having strengthened engine and fuel system internals for overseas markets with high Ethanol fuel content. Also, there are many cars here that can be had with a flex fuel engine option that can either be fueled with E85 or conventional gas in the same tank.
 
rickhamilton620 said:
I remember reading on Allpar (or wikipedia...not sure) about similar cars (Dodge spirit/Plymouth acclaim) having strengthened engine and fuel system internals for overseas markets with high Ethanol fuel content. Also, there are many cars here that can be had with a flex fuel engine option that can either be fueled with E85 or conventional gas in the same tank.
Click to expand...

Almost all cars here (exceptions being of said imports and specials like the Civic Si) can use anywhere from E0 to E100.
 
My friend told me a whole back that her 335 was having problems because Shell premium had ethanol (I don't think they even advertised it). I sure hope that they will not continue to produce ethanol fuels until modern cars are capable of running them.

If its clearly incompatible with older cars, how were companies even allowed to sell them (undisclosed) in the first place?? I'm guessing its the same sort of government that wants to get their car makers to make more "fuel efficient vehicles that people will buy".
 
They slap some inobtrusive sticker on the pumps these days that state something like "CONTAINS ETHANOL".

The nearest Ethanol-free fuel for my fleet is more than 50 miles away. :(

Redliner: If you build for alcohol it works fine, but for cars that aren't it can be fatal. As for why we have problems with it and Brazil doesn't, I can't even begin to speculate. But the corn ethanol we're using sure isn't working and it's ruining engines.
 
Last edited:
Rhode Island, as far as I know, is completely devoid of ethanol-free pumps.

Which is nice, I drive a 1996 Oldsmobile... I haven't checked the owner's manual, but I would not be surprised to see it mentioning an E10 limit.
 
Spectre said:
mercury
Click to expand...

Coal contains mercury. Burned coal releases tons and tons of it into the air. The CFL's efficiency actually reduces the total amount of mercury going into the environment.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury?plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide?releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
Click to expand...
 
Thats part of the reason i always found the anti-electric-car argument of "Where do you think this electricity is coming from?" sort of weak.

Which is easier? Trying to get 300 million people to buy a car that gets better gas mileage, or building a few dozen new power plants? (Sorry, im a democrat, im probably not allowed to support nuclear power, it doesn't fit the narrative. My guns are also most likely made of air)
 
If you are a Democrat, you're not allowed to support anything but those useless wind farms that don't work most of the time. Or so says your fellow party members and leadership.

fail-owned-clean-energy-fail.jpg



You can't have solar, either.

Edit: Adding appropriate graphic:
oildebate.jpg
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
They slap some inobtrusive sticker on the pumps these days that state something like "CONTAINS ETHANOL".

The nearest Ethanol-free fuel for my fleet is more than 50 miles away. :(

Redliner: If you build for alcohol it works fine, but for cars that aren't it can be fatal. As for why we have problems with it and Brazil doesn't, I can't even begin to speculate. But the corn ethanol we're using sure isn't working and it's ruining engines.
Click to expand...


Brazil and all of South America have used ethanol for years and the auto companies made the cars able to handle it.

Spectre said:
If you are a Democrat, you're not allowed to support anything but those useless wind farms that don't work most of the time. Or so says your fellow party members and leadership.

fail-owned-clean-energy-fail.jpg



You can't have solar, either.
Click to expand...

You need to pick a side with wind power. More than once you have boasted the fact that Texas is home to the largest wind farm in the world. I live bot to far from a wind farm here, and I have never seen the blades not moving unless it was undergoing maintanence.
 
I'm already getting only 16MPG in the city with 10% ethanol. I can't afford to lose any more mpg :(
 
GRtak said:
Brazil and all of South America have used ethanol for years and the auto companies made the cars able to handle it.
Click to expand...

Go read your manual. Most of the US car population isn't made to use it and can't. Unless you have one of the very, very few E85 cars, you're pretty much screwed.

You need to pick a side with wind power. More than once you have boasted the fact that Texas is home to the largest wind farm in the world. I live bot to far from a wind farm here, and I have never seen the blades not moving unless it was undergoing maintanence.
Click to expand...

It is the largest wind farm con the continent but all you have to do is go look at a large one anywhere in the world for a significant length of time; you will see that they are quite often not spinning. Wind power is worth doing, but you simply cannot rely on it.

But don't believe me. Why don't you see what the British government discovered? (via The Telegraph)

Edit: I posted this to an earlier thread last year prior to the elections, but I think I need to throw it in here.

Spectre said:
Also, if that E15 initiative becomes a reality, something like sixty percent of the US personal vehicle fleet will immediately begin to break down and disintegrate to the point of unservicibility. Why? Because then E15 was tried before, in the 1970s, it turned out to be a horrible mess, to the point where most manufacturers have a warning like this in their owner's manuals, such as this one from a 1998 Honda:

Picture+28.png


E10 is bad enough, E15 will be a car (and motorcycle and small engine and boat and plane and snowmobile and tractor and generator) killer.

I have a feeling that in order to 'compensate' for this Congress' and President's growing unpopularity that they will attempt to get the farmers back on board with E15 - at the expense of most of the US motoring public.

Edit: And if you think that's just something 'older vehicles' are subject to, here's a shot from the 2009 E-class US market owners' manual:
Picture+65.png


And the 2010 Infiniti G37S owner's manual:
Picture+66.png


So, pretty much anything you've got that isn't an actual E85-intended flex fuel vehicle is pretty much going to get eaten by E15. Unless, of course, you spend thousands of dollars retrofitting it... in the middle of a depression.... with money you may or may not have...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top