backtop

Print 149 comment(s) - last by BluntForceTram.. on May 26 at 6:13 AM
Automakers claim E15 damaged 2 out of 8 test cars

The fuel people pump into their vehicles around the country today can have up to 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol content. However, the federal government is proposing a new fuel standard called E15. This fuel would increase the ethanol content in fuel to 15%, leaving just 85% gasoline.
 
The federal government has approved the use of E15 in some vehicles, but automakers and oil refiners are now claiming that the E15 standard could lead to damage in some vehicle engines. The new E15 formula damaged engines in two of the eight vehicles used in high mileage tests according to a study backed by automakers and oil refiners.
 
"(These) objective scientific tests have found disturbing evidence that increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline above the current 10 percent causes serious damage to car engines," said American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers President Charles Drevna in a statement.
 
These are cars EPA has approved to run on E15 and are representative of approximately 5 million vehicles in the nation's existing fleet."
 
This is a significant finding as American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers has found that even cars that are spec’d to run E15 are experiencing a rather high failure rate. If this were to be the case, drivers of vehicles that have no trouble running E10 would be in for a rude awakening with E15.
 
However, the Department of Energy (DOE) isn’t buying these claims. DOE vehicle technology program manager Patrick Davis wrote on the DOE blog, "The Energy Department conducted its own rigorous … study. (It) showed no statistically significant loss of vehicle performance."

Source: Detroit News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ethanol... no thanks
By Argon18 on 5/17/2012 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol fun facts:
1. Corn is the single most polluting crop in the US, and is one of the most fertilizer and pesticide intensive crops in the world. When you read about streams and waterways contaminated with agriculture runoff, and new cancers, diseases, and birth defects in people who drink from those water sources - you can thank Ethanol.
2. Ethanol takes more energy to make, than what it provides. It is a net energy loss.
3. Ethanol drops the stoichiometric ratio for gasoline engines. The current E10 drops the ratio by 4% - from 14.7:1 to 14.1:1. This means your car consumes 4% more fuel to go the same distance. Ethanol reduces your MPG's and wastes gas.
4. Ethanol destroys classic cars. Cars that do not use electronic fuel injection will run too lean and suffer internal engine damage. Carburetors need to be rejetted to richen the mixture, etc.
5. Ethanol is a financial scam - it is heavily subsidized by the federal government. It is being forced on us by the powerful Corn lobby. Instead of "Big Oil", we now have "Big Corn".




RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By tastyratz on 5/17/2012 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 4
Don't forget this fun fact:
NO small engines are made to handle ANY left of ethanol and are all suffering. That lawnmower that you have had forever? weed trimmer? snowblower? All have carb problems now or will very soon. e15 will be even worse.
Not even classic cars, relatively new but not VERY new cars have issues with e10. Not many cars have issues with it right away, so you won't explode on your first fill up... but over time (including reasonable expectation of wear and tear) there will be a higher incident rate.

e15 is just ludicrous.

We are helping nobody but the lobbyists. The corn industry is just downright evil in most cases. It's not good for America, its good for big agricultural business. It's bad enough they Price fix natural sugar to artificially create a corn syrup market.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2012 10:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
Newer lawn mowers are built to handle E10. But move it to E15, and you'll probably have issues.

I look forward to suing the federal government when my warranty is voided since most new cars specifically state in their owners manual that running fuel with over 10% ethanol will do just that.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By mindless1 on 5/17/2012 11:55:09 AM , Rating: 3
Newer mowers and other (lawn car, etc.) were, but then with the new CARB compliance mandates they're back to running poorly in a short time with no easy way to adjust the carb, especially the smaller displacement engines.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Souka on 5/17/2012 7:40:01 PM , Rating: 3
So I'll toss in the silver lining to E15.

It'll mean more people working in America.

Engines will fail sooner, creating more demand for blue-collar jobs to repair them.
E15 requires more engergy to produce than E10... again, more money spent, more jobs in the end.
Big engine repairs will cause the average life of cars to be reduced...causing people to buy more cars... more need to be made/sold... hence more jobs.

And lets not forget... because E15 will mean you'll end up buying 1 or more additonal cars in your lifetime, you'll have to work longer before retirement.... more poeple working.

It's a win win!

* this has been said with intent of sarcam


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By spamreader1 on 5/21/2012 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 1
My 1 year old Troy built bronco riding mower says to not use fuel containing ethanol all over it.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 6:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
You have to wonder if they made such a blanket statement to not pay out on any warrany work given many places no longer offer ethanol-free gas anywhere.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/17/2012 11:08:59 AM , Rating: 5
I am an Automotive Engineer and worked in Ford R&D for a decade. I consider myself vastly more qualified than anybody on Anandtech about this topic.

Running E15 will not hurt any vehicle currently running E10.

There. I said it. It's true. No scientific or logical arguement can follow. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

E85 on the other hand will cause some problems in vehicles using non-viton o-rings and has a tenancy to 'sump' in the fuel tank if you let a vehicle sit for an extended period, which can lead to a clogged fuel filter and delayed fuel pressure recovery. E85 vehicles are equiped with viton rubber throughout and non-conventional fuel filters. That's about all it takes to make a car mechanically compatible with pure ethanol. However, a PCM flash would be ideal in order to burn the higher-octane fuel efficiently, but mass-air (non air-density) fuel injection systems will automatically recalibrate in open loop to any octane level by increasing the burn temperature through various techniques (spark advance, MAF signal delta, etc) and the vehicle will operate normally with reduced fuel economy. The proper way to harness high-ethanol fuel is to combine it with forced induction. It has very high octane content which works well in high boost applications where detonation would normally be a concern.

Manufactures are bitching for political, illogical reasons. The petroleum industry on the other hand is likely going to be footing the bill to change refining, sampling, and distribution systems, so they have a legitimate financial reason to bitch.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
Nicely said. Reclaimer and FITCamaro won't believe you. They already have rationalized this with their "government is evil" bias toward EVERYTHING.

But well said! Cheers!


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By mindless1 on 5/17/2012 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 5
What if running E10 was harming the vehicle and running E15 just does so 50% faster?

However I have a different concern. The automotive industry is being pushed to make more fuel efficient vehicles, to hit a particular MPG number and at the same time, we're going to use less energy dense fuel to do so?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By JediJeb on 5/17/2012 3:48:44 PM , Rating: 3
I think this is similar to trying to use propane or natural gas in an engine that is setup to run straight gasoline. For those fuels you must increase the compression ratio somehow, the same is true if running straight ethanol. Higher octane requires higher compression to be efficient. Something like the Ecoboost engines with forced induction would be capable of handling this if the boost is controlled to increase and decrease depending on the fuel being used.

It's funny, I am a chemist and not an automotive engineer, but when I posted once that the only thing needed to make engines compatible the higher ethanol levels was changing the O-ring materials I was shot down like I was an idiot, even though I was correct.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2012 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
What about older cars that weren't meant to run on either E10 or E15?

I have a 1991 300ZX that's encountered problems due to ethanol use. As soon as ethanol was added to gasoline, loads of the early 300zx's began encountering fuel injector problems. At first the companies claimed that there was no way that ethanol could cause this, but later it was found that the ethanol did, in fact, cause this.

Here's the way they failed: in the early-style (90-93) injectors, internal components that are connected to the positive and negative side of the fuel injection circuit are insulated from each other but are exposed to the fuel. This was never a problem since gasoline is not electrically conductive. However, ethanol is conductive and once it was added to gasoline fuel injectors began failing due to galvanic corrosion occurring within the injector.

Also, there are parts of the fuel system that are aluminum, which ethanol at higher concentrations tends to eat away. Then there is the issue of ethanol eating away the rubber, which you already mentioned.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/17/2012 12:25:35 PM , Rating: 5
I have a twin-carb 1979 Honda CX500 Custom that has burned E10 perfectly for 15 years. I haven't even touched the carburators since they were rebuilt in 2005 (for performance, not overhaul.)

I also have a Edelbrock 1406 quad mounted to a Ford 302 in my 82 Mercury Capri. Edelbrock ironically states this carb is not for ethanol use (because like many people, they're idiots and think ethanol is some sort of devil serum) but has run great for years even without complete winterizations. That engine puts out over 400hp with a mild cam on pump gas.

Most vehicles dating back to 1986 (import and foreign even further!) used viton rubber on all fuel components, more so for temperature durability than fuel compatibility. It was part of the materials bill when the industry moved to fuel injection.

Your 300ZX didn't have problems with ethanol, it had problems with the operator. I'd like to point out every fuel additive, octane booster and injector cleaner is almost entirely ethanol alcohol, and people use them all the time to solve problems, not create them. Alcohol has excellent cleaning properties for cleaning the solenoids and basket filters of injectors.

If you knew basic chemistry, you'd already know no alcohol is electrically conductive.

Alcohol is also non-corrosive to many metals, especially aluminum, as long as a required corrosive gas isn't present(oxygen.) The fuel pressure regulator will make sure the fuel line is entirely air-free before fuel is delivered to the injectors. If your injectors are spitting air or you have internal corrosion in less than, say, 100,000 miles, then you have serious fuel system problems.

Most injectors now have plastic bodies. This isn't because they're "ethanol-friendly" but because its cheaper damnit. Some people think metal bodies will help reduce temperatures, but again, if the fuel going into your engine is 'hot' then you have a serious fuel system problem. It's perfectly normal for fuel to be above ambient temperature as the fuel pump and other fuel systems are liquid cooled with the fuel that flows through them (much like any liquid pump) so some heat will be transfered to the fuel. A metal injector body won't reduce fuel temperatures, and in many cases, will increase them by absorbing underhood temperatures.

Keep swinging...


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2012 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your 300ZX didn't have problems with ethanol, it had problems with the operator.


That's a bit bold to say, isn't it? Especially when scores of other 90-93 300ZX's encountered the same problem as mine.

quote:
Keep swinging...


This sounds immature. It's not my goal to fight with you or make you look bad on a forum, I just want to be able to use my car without the fuel eating away the fuel system.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/17/2012 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That's a bit bold to say, isn't it? Especially when scores of other 90-93 300ZX's encountered the same problem as mine.


A google search revealed nothing about injector failures being caused by "electrically conductive" ethanol. The problem centers around the poorly engineered injector seat position in the plenum, placing the injectors body up against the intake manifolds directly above the exhaust manifolds. Don't blame ethanol, millions and millions of vehicles didn't have problems, but the 2nd gen 300ZX did, so it must be ethanol!

http://pics.hoobly.com/full/nLQ4LXzdQ_.jpg

quote:
This sounds immature. It's not my goal to fight with you or make you look bad on a forum, I just want to be able to use my car without the fuel eating away the fuel system.


Immature? I've counted 10 completely incorrect statements above my post regarding ethanol conducting electricity, "eats aluminum away," complete misunderstandings of carburated lawn care equipment, various tangents of government conspiracy, lobbying, and hatred for the corn industry which people don't seem to understand is a switch crop and every other year produces nothing edible but just so happens to be a source of fuel.

I'm not defending anybody but myself. And all I'm saying is ethanol is 100% compatible with any fuel injected vehicle products in the last 30 years, and virtually all carburated vehicles that have been dialed in for whatever fuel they're running on.

I'll say it again. Anything that currently runs on E10 will run E15 without anyone having to do ANYTHING to their vehicle.

This auto industry "study" that found 2 in 8 "test cars" were damaged from a 5% bump in ethanol content is just impossible.

The only plausible complaint I've ever heard about ethanol fuel is in marine use where the pickup feed for outboard motors is at the bottom of a tank that never gets a good stir, causing difficulty starting the motor. Again, of all the things I've heard, this is the only one that I can not argue with because its true. Not much else is. It's just a stupid arguement.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By JediJeb on 5/17/2012 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 3
I can add an observation from my own experience. My father still used two old Farmall Tractors on his farm, one made in 1956 the other about 1960 and they get fed whatever gasoline is currently being placed into any normal car. He doesn't get any special blend for agriculture, even the tax free one since he just doesn't use enough to justify the hassle. They still run fine. These things set for weeks and sometime months with the same fuel in them which should cause all kinds of problems if ethanol was corrosive, but he hasn't seen any more corrosion than he saw 30 years ago when rebuilding them back then. He hasn't even seen all the problems that were supposed to show up when lead was removed from gasoline, supposedly because the lead was a "lubricant" which it wasn't, it was an anti knock agent actually. Too many myths and falsies get thrown out as facts when it come to automotive problems.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 5:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
I want to thank Samus for posting up this info. I really hope you are correct and not just lucky. I will ask if you have any links to studies or any other research that I can do on my own.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/18/2012 2:32:04 AM , Rating: 4
That really old farm equipment, like many engines up into the early 70's, were designed around leaded fuels. I'll admit I'm not familiar with those engines, but I have a close friend in San Diego who has a 1966 Buick Riviera with the famed GM Nailhead V8 which has valve seats very sensitive to unleaded fuel, not because of the ethanol, but because of the lack of lead content. In California, it is illegal to use a lead substitute, so when the engine finally lost enough compression, he had the heads rebuilt using hardened valve seats and some other aftermarket stuff.

He had it explained to him by a mechanic and it sounds plausable, going something like this: there is a chemical reaction with lead that the engine is designed around, and that would be the lead atomizes with the nickle in the metal (valves usually have very high nickle content) coating the valve preventing valve lash to the seats. Unleaded fuel burns much cooler than leaded fuel as well. Old applications designed using this principle don't have treated/hardened metals and will wear more at lower cumbustion temperatures. The temperature delta is so significant that even agressive plug gap and sizes can't offset it.

I agree with this explaination because of what we know leaded fuel does to catalysts, that is, it bonds to the nickle and palladium and clogs the catalytic convertors up, which is one of the reasons it was phased out around the introduciton of mandated emissions.

It's certainly a pain for people who want to keep their ride completely original, but it's hard to argue with a ban on lead fuel in regard to our health.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Denithor on 5/18/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By JediJeb on 5/18/2012 3:42:41 PM , Rating: 4
"Tetraethyl lead was extensively used as an additive to gasoline, wherein it served as an effective antiknock agent and prevented exhaust valve and seat wear."

Taken from Wikipedia, not the best reference but if you read the whole article there are several links to what it was used for. It does help with valve and seat wear but not simply as a lubricant even in that function. Antiknock agents raise the octane rating of a fuel allowing higher compression ratios. I imagine the reason our old farm equipment runs ok on unleaded fuel is because of their low compression ratio and low RPM operating range which tops out about 2500rpms, they really don't run very hot compared to most car engines.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By tastyratz on 5/17/2012 1:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgetting a few important things:
fuel pump cavitation, and momentary fuel starvation at low fuel levels and city driving. Air bubbles DO make it through the system, and the fuel pressure regulator might help break them up, but it does not bleed active fuel lines. Race cars often have "swirl pots" to overcome massive cavitation levels, a very small amount in regular cars is not very hard to consider.

But you have to also consider the amount of aluminum used in an engine in general. intake manifolds (although many are now plastic not all) and cylinder heads to name a few are directly coated with fuel and oxygen. 50% more ethanol is 50% more wear. Engines made to handle e10 are much more prepared, but not immune.
Changing ethanol content changes stoich points and the way a car runs. Engines with aggressive pcm tunes now have far less safety margin than factory and may have poor emissions/mileage/longevity/etc. as a result.
Just because you might sometimes put a quart or less of ethanol in a very large tank of gas does not mean that regularly having constant exposure is similar.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By NellyFromMA on 5/17/2012 1:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
It seems odd that someone who claims to have worked in R&D in ANY industry would be so dismissive of other people's claims. Kind of makes me just wanna disregard anything you try to say, actually..


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/17/2012 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Kind of makes me just wanna disregard anything you try to say, actually..


That is fine logic...disagree with one statement to disagree with all statements?

I wasn't dismissive, I researched it, found a number of people having the same problem, and discovered it was not ethanol related, but the cause of a Datsun design flaw requiring unreasonable fuel system maintenance probably not followed by many owners.

Then again, who could keep up with it on this car, it has the maintenance schedule of a McLaren F1. Diff fluid every 15k?

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/MaintenanceSchedule...


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/17/2012 3:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting facts from rockauto.com show the fuel injectors, fuel rail, and regulator, didn't change from the 90-93 300ZX models people complain about to the 94-95 models people claim the problem was resolved in.

Guess what part did change?

The filter. In 1994 became larger (longer) and is now mounted near the tank instead of on the drivers strut tower near the exhaust manifold. Hard not to consider that as a source of overheating injectors as well.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Lord 666 on 5/17/2012 3:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
And yet Samus insisted my 2006 Jetta TDI wasn't built in Mexico.

Not even after I posted the pic of the door jam sticker clearly stating so would he believe me.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/18/2012 1:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, yeah I remember that, you sure showed me. I couldn't believe it because I was still at Ford when their were internal conflicts with the UAW and moving some production to Mexico was highly debated, but one of many things that prevented them from turning into GM financially. The Focus was built nearby to the VW plant, in Hermosillo. A friend of mine with a 2002 Golf TDI told me diesels were all built in Brazil and Germany because of the ban on diesel sales in many states at the time, including California, one of VW's largest markets, so demand was too low to justify training and assembly for an alternate engine configuration. But at some point between then and 2006 they did, probably because CARB's diesel ban was lifted in 2004, but thats speculation...

Nothing wrong with hencho in Mexico. Most Focus and Fusions are built there, as they have been since they went on sale in the states.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By NellyFromMA on 5/18/2012 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
If I understand you correctly, you found problems in various Nissan vehicles related to a Datsun fuel regulator?

So, vehicles did have problems that were egged on by using Ethanol fuels when otherwise they would not?

I mean, even if the design was sloppy, the consumer would indeed have problems egged on by introducing ethanol fuels, no? And presumably, this could not be the only regulator design to exhibit this... well we'll say 'flaw'?

Maybe I misunderstood, but if the above is accurate, the consumer loses big and they will not understand and should not IMO have to understand the difference.

In fact if the design worked acceptably before and now would be negatively imacted, that would kind of prove the point right there: introduction of ethanol fuel lead to deterioration of overall vehicle performance.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/21/2012 10:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interesting facts from rockauto.com show the fuel injectors, fuel rail, and regulator, didn't change from the 90-93 300ZX models people complain about to the 94-95 models people claim the problem was resolved in.


I was off by 1 year in the date it changed. It changed in 1995. Lots of auto parts sites don't have the correct information about the Z. The fuel injectors and fuel rail are different between those years. 90-94 has the early style injectors and 95-96 has the late style. The injectors and fuel rail are different.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By GruntboyX on 5/17/2012 11:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Samus, I really appreciate your detailed and knowledgeable answer. However:

I have a 2003 Ranger with 3.0L V6. I seem to have smoother operation and less knocking when running pure gas. Especially on a hot day when running the AC.

Those are just my observations.

I guess what your saying is nothing is wrong with the ethanol, but I have some other problem with my fuel system.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By bobsmith1492 on 5/18/2012 12:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
I have the same on my '89 Bronco II... I found using midgrade eliminates the knocking and gives a slight fuel economy boost (I think - I tested it a few times with a fairly repetitive routine). Might be worth a try; it's basically the same price anymore at $.1 higher per gallon (2.6% more at 3.90/gal).


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/18/2012 2:01:47 AM , Rating: 4
Those 3.0L Vulcan's are pushrod engines not known for being very quiet. They seemed to get noisier when fitted with distributorless ignition in the mid 90's though. "Spark knock" is a common complaint but it has more to do with emissions/programming used with the solid-state ignition (which introduced spark retard/advance 15 degrees +/- TDC) than the engine/fuel type. This improved torque, idle smoothness, and highway fuel economy. I know it was hotly debated when introduced, but most solid-state coils are extremely reliable and will outlast a dozen distributor caps and at least one distributor.

If it is smooth sometimes and rough others, investigate your knock sensor, fuel filter and it never hurts to have injectors flow-benched every 60k as one might be spraying funny.

They last 300,000 miles before the chain sleds fail, spark-knock or no spark-knock.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By superflex on 5/17/2012 12:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an environmental engineer for the last 19 years, focusing on underground storage tanks. Ask any O&M person in the field if ethanol hasnt caused problems with fuel piping and dispensers. There are hundreds of documented cases of piping failures from ethanol incompatability with flex piping and appurtanances.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 12:42:43 PM , Rating: 1
That's great. I was merely asking about a weird start up issue I've noticed since the adoption of E10. I never said Ethanol was harmful to my vehicle. I don't even know if ethanol IS the cause.

My issue with ethanol is that it's measurably inferior to pure gasoline, and the way in which it arrived on the market.

I don't think the Federal Government should be deciding what fuel we run. Your points about ethanol notwithstanding.

Also I'm fairly disappointed by your characterization of private enterprise participating in the political process as "bitching" and "illogical". In my vision of America such exercise of speech is not only protected but respected.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By ppardee on 5/17/2012 1:29:45 PM , Rating: 3
Wow. You must be a liberal. You sound just like Al Gore there...

You believe that you're an authority but have no real verifiable qualifications, then make a statement with no real supporting facts and declare the topic closed for discussion.

What political, illogical reasons would the auto industry have for lying about the cars being damaged by the fuel change? (Let's stay out of conspiracy territory here...)

And, more importantly, reality always trumps theory. Theoretically, if you put 100 mL of water at 10 degrees C in a freezer along with 100 mL of water at 80 degrees C in similar containers, the colder water should freeze first. In reality, the hotter water freezes first in many (if not all) circumstances. Saying that it is impossible doesn't make it so.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Jeffk464 on 5/17/2012 7:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Last I heard environmentalists that you label "liberals" don't support corn based ethanol. It uses valuable farm land and the fact that you get so little fuel return for the amount of fuel and resources you put into it, it does more harm then good.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By ppardee on 5/18/2012 4:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to the "I have spoken! There's nothing left to discuss" attitude. It has nothing to do with corn, ethanol, cars or environmentalism and everything to do with the left thinking they know better than everyone else. That is the entire Democratic/Progressive/Socialist/Communist platform.

We are the elite and you, the unwashed masses, are dumb animals. You need us to direct every aspect of your life or society will go to hell.

This philosophy requires an air of authority (which Seamus tried to establish by claiming to be an engineer... I say claim because I am an engineer and would NEVER say anything in a complex system is impossible... Perhaps he's just a really bad engineer?) and it requires that authority and the decisions rendered by it to never be questioned.... 2 for 2 there.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Jeffk464 on 5/17/2012 7:30:58 PM , Rating: 1
Ford pfff, get back to me when you get a job with Toyota. :)


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Alexvrb on 5/17/2012 9:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your former employer, Ford? They disagree with you - along with pretty much every other carmaker! They say that on older (let's say mid 90s to early 2000s) vehicles that are barely coping with E10 will suffer accelerated wear and premature failure with E15. But clearly it's all political, even though they don't even make the cars in question anymore (they're existing vehicles on the road). You know, even though many newer models are better equipped to handle more ethanol. Even though tons of dead cars is a potential sales boost for them. Nope, it's all political. :/

Regarding E85... why don't we take a NON-flex-fuel, non-DI vehicle of your choice AND your ownership, and do a "long term" E85 test. You can totally replace all the o-rings in the fuel system too! Go ahead. Because, you know, it's just higher octane. Not significantly lower energy density or anything. ALL fuel injected vehicles can infinitely trim. It's not like different displacement motors use different injectors, or anything, for any reason at all. Nope. Every Ford engine uses the same injectors and they just magically spray the right amount of fuel to get the job done. Hell, it'll run on anything that is liquid and burns, no problem!

No sir... ricers that run E85 don't change out their injectors and retune. Nope, never. No reason to! You can take any ol' Civic and just start running E85 in it 24/7. Just ask Honda. Doesn't even void the warranty!

I don't even know why they bother using those darned alcohol content sensors in flex fuel vehicles anyway.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By DockScience on 5/18/2012 1:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
Samus,

My 2011 Subaru warranty says it's VOID if I use anything over E10.

Can I send you the bill if something happens with E15?
I mean, you are good for it, right?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/18/2012 2:48:41 AM , Rating: 2
Your Subaru warranty states that because all the boys with their WRX's blowing up their boxer motors using E85 as a high-octane alternative.

Toyota uses the same engines in the Venza, and I just looked, it's good for E85.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/flex-fuel.html

So basically, you bought a car from a manufacturer that is trying to cover all their bases, just like Ford is with this 'stunt'.

The only exception could be if your Subaru is turbo charged and they didn't calibrate the wastegate properly for higher octane fuel. The boost controller should accomodate this in relation to knock, but hey, it's a Subaru, they are known for reliable all-wheel drive systems, not engines. All one needs to do is look at their past in avation to know the boxer engine has no place in anything but a motorcycle or a 911.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/18/2012 2:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
Your Subaru warranty states that because all the boys with their WRX's blowing up their boxer motors using E85 as a high-octane alternative.

Toyota uses the same engines in the Venza, and I just looked, it's good for E85.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/flex-fuel.html

So basically, you bought a car from a manufacturer that is trying to cover all their bases, just like Ford is with this 'stunt'.

The only exception could be if your Subaru is turbo charged and they didn't calibrate the wastegate properly for higher octane fuel. The boost controller should accomodate this in relation to knock, but hey, it's a Subaru, they are known for reliable all-wheel drive systems, not engines. All one needs to do is look at their past in avation to know the boxer engine has no place in anything but a motorcycle or a 911.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By alpha754293 on 5/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/19/2012 6:07:02 AM , Rating: 2
You're clearly not qualified enough to know a 1910 Packard won't burn any unleaded fuel for very long. I'd give it 50 miles before the exhaust valve seats drop.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By rontecat on 5/18/2012 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 1
Only 12 out of 28 engines failed long term durability testing on E15/20. I guess the impossible is sometimes possible...

http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2012/CM-...


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By donxvi on 5/18/2012 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 1
I'm an automotive engineer and worked in Ford engine calibration (on FFV vehicles) for five years. And at a lab testing primarily fuel system components, primarily for Ford for a couple of years before that. I'll challenge you to an RCON/ATI/ETAS throwdown any day to determine who's more qualified to comment on this topic.

You're wrong.

Fuel systems have to be extensively re-speced to run E85. Pumps, tank material (remember steel fuel tanks?) senders, lines, injectors, regulator materials, valve seats all have to be compatible with E85. Don't forget the flame arrestor in the filler neck.
A mass air sensor isn't the component that helps your engine infer the presence of ethanol fuel, it's the O2 sensors. And in a non-FFV application, their error bounds are too narrow to accomodate E85. Possibly even E15.
Irrelevant gobbeldy-gook (filters, MAF signal delta, etc) ignored.

This statement is my own and not reflective of the words of any employer, past or present.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Samus on 5/19/2012 6:19:19 AM , Rating: 3
First, this discussion isn't about E85, it's about E15.

Second, it's widely regarded ethanol alcohol actually cleans the components you specify that are not compatible with ethanol. There are hundreds of cleaners, many endorsed by auto manufactures, that are pure ethanol, and are guaranteed not to harm the vehicle. The remaining agents in the petrol, including rust inhibitors, will prevent any wear that would occur with pure ethanol fuel. But, again, this discussion is about E15, and all of the compatibility issues are irrelevent because the difference from E10 is almost immeasurable as far as the vehicle is concerned.

Third, I'm sure you understand a MAF's job is to control fuel content in the combustion chamber as it measures the air content to keep the A/F nominal (12-15:1) and yes, the system doesn't work properly without an oxygen sensor, but the MAF's responsibility is critical when you consider the energy density of E10 and E15 are different, and E15 will need more air to burn efficiently (which is why turbo applications are so successful as you increase the ethanol content in fuel.) An o2 sensor can be emulated (early fuel injection systems didn't have them, but they proved to be more efficient than measuring temperatures in speed density fuel injection and adjusting A/F to keep the engine within its ideal operating temperature.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By donxvi on 5/20/2012 9:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, sir, it was you that stated that all that was required to run E85 was to change out some o-rings.

And you are very incorrect as to how these systems operate. I hope nobody's taking your words with any weight.

I hope to refresh your memory by pointing out that the MAFS only measures how much air is coming in, then the engine computer specifies an injector duty cycle to get a desired F:A ratio. Airflow is determined by throttle opening, EGR flow rate and engine speed. The output of the MAFS will not change based on the fuel. The O2 sensors provide the feedback on how well it's doing that job by switching from high to low output when stoich is achieved; otherwise it's up to the engine computer to trim it's injector duty cycles to achieve stoich. Of course all of these air charge measuring functions can be performed by a MAP sensor instead of a MAFS in a speed-density system.
You're right, ancient mechanical fuel injection systems were open loop. Perhaps even some super early electronic systems. But measuring "temperatures" (air charge temp?) in a MAP system didn't tell the engine what air fuel ratio it was achieving, only provided a starting point for fuel metering. You would be well advised to research how closed loop fuel injection systems operate and what their feedback mechanisms are.
P.S.- I'm dying to know what temperature was measured in these speed density fuel injection systems that the ECU used as a feedback mechanism to "keep the engine within it's ideal operating temperature".


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By donxvi on 5/20/2012 10:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
I should note that the fuel system components I specified as needing to be evaluated against, and generally reformulated to accomodate ethanol fuels, are the ones that ACTUALLY GET CHANGED BY AUTOMAKERS! This isn't me making these things up, these are real parts that really get changed to make vehicles compatible with ethanol fuels. This exact area of automotive development was my job for nearly 10 years. It really happened.

BTW, gas line dryer/gas line antifreeze is pure alcohol (although I believe it's always isopropyl), fuel system cleaners are complex hydrocarbon blends just like gasoline, they're not pure ethanol! The bottom of this page says what's in STP: http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house...


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By nolisi on 5/17/2012 12:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Okay I think calling the corn industry "evil" is a bit much.


quote:
It's the Government that's the problem, of course, not the corn industry or the lobbyists. Once again the Government involves itself in something it simply was NEVER meant to oversee.

We need to Amend or just remove the Commerce Clause. It's being used by Washington idiots to usher in our downfall.


I love these statements because they totally mix up cause and effect.

Government is not the one lobbying itself for ethanol- that would be the corn industry.

It is the players of the market which injects itself into government and politics to gain competitive advantage and push agenda. Cronyism isn't about "government control", cronyism is about the players in the free market having control.

If mandate power were repealed, players in the market would push and bribe people in government to find another means of instituting their agenda. Or they might just pay off congress to reinstitute mandate power.

The "cause" is not government. Government (should) have no cause but the poeple. It's when you have business interests lobbying, getting elected/appointed to government positions, and manipulating beaurocracy that these issues are caused.

The reason (cause) the free market isn't free has nothing to do with government. Business interests don't want a completely free market. Look at corporate structure and how players in the market game the system to get a competitive advantage- they want mandates and policies which guarantee shareholder equity.

Most of the idiots in Washington you talk about- guess where most of them came from? The market.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By superstition on 5/17/2012 4:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Business interests want a captive market, with competition only as a veneer on their heavily subsidized virtual monopolist rule."

fify


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By AnnihilatorX on 5/17/2012 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
Good luck with logical arguments. There are only two groups of politicians, those who lack common sense and basic scientific knowledge, and those who are brainwashed by money and lobbying.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By leviathan05 on 5/17/2012 10:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
I would bet that there is a VERY large overlap in those two groups.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By InvertMe on 5/17/2012 10:25:13 AM , Rating: 3
I'm fairly sure they are one and the same group...


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By michael67 on 5/17/2012 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Your right, I think its (almost) criminal to use crop land for fuel, even wood chips that used to be recycled as fertilizer is now being used for car fuel.

Till they get seaweed or specially algae to work as a fuel sours, i think we should just stick with the oil based petrol we have now.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By mindless1 on 5/17/2012 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wood chips and bark, etc are usually used for mulch and engineered faux wood (particle board, etc). At least there's an upside that when the mulch is used in areas with poor soil, over time it creates a better topsoil to grow things.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2012 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
3. Ethanol drops the stoichiometric ratio for gasoline engines. The current E10 drops the ratio by 4% - from 14.7:1 to 14.1:1. This means your car consumes 4% more fuel to go the same distance. Ethanol reduces your MPG's and wastes gas.


That's not what that means. You're confusing stoichiometric ratio with energy content.

If having a lower stoiciometric ratio meant poorer fuel economy, then how do you explain the fact that gasoline has a higher ratio than diesel, yet diesel gets better fuel economy?

Gasoline: 14.7:1
Diesel 14.5 : 1


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 11:21:38 AM , Rating: 1
The two engines combustion chambers work in entirely different ways, so I'm not sure you can compare those ratios in that way to arrive at your conclusion.

Diesels also rev lower than gas engines. A LOT lower.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2012 12:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the primary reason that you get worse fuel economy on ethanol as opposed to gasoline is the energy density of the fuel.

Fuel: BTU/Gallon
Gasoline: 114,100
Diesel: 129,500
Ethanol: 76,100

If you designed the engine to run straight ethanol you'd be able to run higher compression ratios and/or use more boost from a turbo, increasing fuel economy. However, you'd still be constrained by the lower energy density of the fuel.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2012 5:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
You definitely would be able to run higher compression, use more boost, and get more power. More fuel economy? No. Cars that have been built and tuned to run E85 run around 30% more fuel. You're not going to get those kinds of efficiency gains back just through higher compression.

Better fuel economy than a stock engine today running ethanol? Yes. Better than a stock engine today running even E10? No.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By cknobman on 5/17/2012 11:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Because diesel engines run at a higher compression than gas engines?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By bah12 on 5/17/2012 12:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
What the other 2 said, plus the vast vast vast majority of diesels use turbo charging and inter-cooling (in fact I couldn't name one that doesn't).

That fact alone makes it impossible to compare to a naturally aspirated gas engine. For decades now diesel has held an advantage because of the widespread adoption of turbos, even if you ignore the other efficiency aspects of a diesel.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2012 12:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
My gasoline car has turbos, but that doesn't improve the fuel economy at all. In fact, it makes it worse since it's driving around with a lower compression ratio the vast majority of the time.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By bah12 on 5/17/2012 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Should have been more clear. Your turbos are certainly setup to add power not efficiency. Not all turbos add efficiency as is the case with your setup, but they certainly can be engineered to do so. As with most things it is a balancing act, and my point was the diesel industry clearly has a lead in perfecting that balance. It is no wonder that the EcoBoost craze is in full swing, the benefits are certainly there, however historically gas engines were good enough with out it.

BTW I do agree ethanol is evil and should go away. It just takes too many resources for far to little gain.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By tastyratz on 5/17/2012 1:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're both right.
The reduced energy content means lower miles per gallon
however the change in stoich point means the pcm tune is not going to compensate for ideal fueling conditions.
gasoline with traditional octane boosters is 14.7:1, but pure ethanol is 9:1. Max power rich (not safest) is 12.5:1 for gas, and 7:1 for ethanol. Generally manufacturers leave a wider margin in gas going as rich as 10:1 in high load acceleration conditions.
What does that mean for ethanol?
Fuel injector sizing is substandard, and a 5ms pulse rate of gas vs 5ms pulse rate of e100 are very different ratios. You almost have to double your injector sizes. An engine with little room will run leaner than safe at full load and may detonate.
Obviously we are not talking about switching to e100 here, but every percentage increase is just another shade of gray.
Manufacturers target a specific lambda also, not afr per say... as oxygen sensors measure oxygen content, not fuel. Every stoich point for all fuels is about 1 lambda on the scale... so a wide band o2 calibrated against lambda will always tell you a reading of 1 for stoich. My point is more the level of correction allowed and size of injectors. If the stock ecu is setup to say, modify +/- 5% but you change the amount of fuel for 1 lambda by 5% just from fuel changes... what room for environmental variables do you have left?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By HrilL on 5/17/2012 1:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
You should get a 6.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By RU482 on 5/17/2012 2:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethanol reduces your MPG's and wastes gas.


if E10 is 10% ethanol, but it reduces fuel consumption by 4%, wouldn't it be a net 6% reduction in gasoline consumption?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Keeir on 5/17/2012 4:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
If Ethanol was free engery, this would be true. Corn Ethanol though varies from study to study, but most people think it takes ~.8 units of Energy (mainly in Oil, NG, etc) to get 1 unit of Ethanol energy.,

E10 doesn't repersent using 90% oil. Its closer to 95% oil/fossil fuels. So if you end up using 96%, you really only saving 1%.

In the end, Ethanol can help the US lower Oil Importants by significant amounts... but we the people don't get to really see this improvement. We stop paying big Oil quite as much and increase payment to big Corn and distort the food market and farmland market in corn growing areas.

To put this in perspective, in 2010, the US used around 300 Billion Gallons of Oil and ~13 Billion Gallons of Ethanol. Without the Ethanol, the US would have likely used ~305 Billion Gallons of Oil. We aren't really "winning" until we find a much better energy crop, but this E15 mandate is so the Ethanol market doesn't collapse under the requirement to produce and use ~36 billion gallons by 2022.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 6:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but this E15 mandate is so the Ethanol market doesn't collapse under the requirement to produce and use ~36 billion gallons by 2022.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain a little more?


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Solandri on 5/18/2012 12:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's important not to conflate ethanol with corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is a political boondoggle, only made economically viable because we subsidize corn production.

Ethanol in general is probably the ideal future biofuel. Alcohols are derived by fermenting sugars. Sugars are produced by breaking up cellulose chains. Cellulose and sugars are created from photosynthesis. It's a much more straightforward jump from plant matter to ethanol, than it is from plant matter to biodiesel.

Running ethanol in engines developed exclusively for gasoline is a bad idea. But long-term, I think engines developed for alcohol fuels have a better chance of supplanting gasoline/diesel than electric or hydrogen.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By JediJeb on 5/18/2012 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
You could get alcohols even from seaweed. The trick is to find something to produce alcohols with carbon chairs even longer than ethanol. Butanol, Pentanol, Hexanol, Heptanol, ... each longer chain is less soluble in water so the longer the chain the less water problems you will have when using it as a fuel and the fewer incompatibilities you will have.


RE: Ethanol... no thanks
By Argon18 on 5/21/2012 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol, no matter what the source, is a very inefficient fuel "source". Any fermented alcohol is. The reason is the repeated boiling required to create the alcohol. It has to be brought to a rolling boil, then cooled to room temperature, and that has to be repeated a dozen times or so on each batch.

Do you know how much energy it takes to bring 13 Billion gallons of liquid to a rolling boil, a dozen times over? An absolutely massive amount. And ironically, the energy for this process usually comes from fossil fuels.

Compare that to Biodiesel, which only requires a single boil to create the finished product, and contains a lot more energy per gallon than ethanol. Not to mention that biodiesel is compatible with all diesel engines, new and old, already. Biodiesel also has a much longer shelf life for storage and transportation. Lastly, the main biodiesel crop in the US, soybeans, is much better for the soil, and is much less pesticide and fertilizer intensive than corn.

When it comes to alternative energy sources that are available today, and compatible with today's distribution system and today's engines, Biodiesel is the clear winner.


I'm all for E99...
By masamasa on 5/17/2012 11:09:37 AM , Rating: 3
Oh wait...that's not gas, it's fully electric! Now if we can just get some decent mileage in the next few years out of those and get the battery prices down low mileage drivers can discard these gas guzzlers.




RE: I'm all for E99...
By chromal on 5/17/2012 11:12:29 AM , Rating: 3
I'll give up my SAAB 900 turbo when your electric car can exceed my 1/4 speed and times, exceed my 450 mile range, has a manual transmission, and can be picked up for less than I paid for mine on the used market ($1500). Until then, it's inferior for my purposes.


RE: I'm all for E99...
By MindParadox on 5/17/2012 1:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
with the proper power plant behind it, virtually any electric vehicle could beat a 1/4 time of any gas powered car.

why is that you ask? because unlike an internal combustion engine, which relies on compression, 100% of torque is applied to an electric motor the instant power is applied.

http://jalopnik.com/190787/electric-aye-ellica-bea...

in case you don't bother to read that, it's an electric car that goes 0-100 MPH in 7 friggin seconds! (and beat out a 1996 Porsche 911 turbo)


RE: I'm all for E99...
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 7:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people constantly bring this up? It's full torque at ZERO rpm. As the revs rise, the torque goes down quite a bit. Also, an electric motor that, say, develops 500 lb-ft of torque at that low of rpm is going to smoke ALL of todays current tires just like combustion engines that have the same amount of torque at higher rpms do. No street car is going to have full engine torque available at that rpm, period! Current (and future) EV's will have max torque limited to save tires and the ignorant people asses just like combustion cars are limited.


RE: I'm all for E99...
By chromal on 5/18/2012 3:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I'll be all aboard our exciting electric performance sporty car future when I can have one such specimen used for $1500, exceed 450 mile range, and with a manual shifter. Preferably a hatchback, as well. Or didn't you "bother to read" my OP?


RE: I'm all for E99...
By Kaldor on 5/17/2012 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
All your doing with electric cars is stressing an already stressed electrical system in our country. We simply do not have the infrastructure in place to use electrical. By and large the major supporters of electric vehicles dont support nuclear power, so what are we going to do to create electricity, burn coal?

Not to mention the problems with actually creating the batteries that are needed for an electrical car.

Electric vehicles are a pipe dream....


DOE - Show us the test data
By Beenthere on 5/17/2012 11:52:29 AM , Rating: 1
The U.S. EPA, DOE and some puppet-heads are on a mission to do as much damage as possible to the U.S. auto industry that is based on crude oil power in an evil plot to force people to buy impractical and over-priced hybrids and EVs. It's time the U.S. government had a complete house cleaning of all these corrupt people.




RE: DOE - Show us the test data
By NovoRei on 5/17/2012 5:20:24 PM , Rating: 3
I love these articles about ethanol. It's always the same speech.

Just 2 points:

Reliability: Brazil runs on E25 for decades. No problem whatsoever. Samus stated everything that is necessary to run on E85. E25 is just fine.

Energy Matrix: US needs to get free from oil/gas price fluctuation whatever the cost. It affects everything.

Ah, and ethanol increase horsepower.


RE: DOE - Show us the test data
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 7:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Energy Matrix: US needs to get free from oil/gas price fluctuation whatever the cost. It affects everything.
If the point is to avoid price fluctuations then it's definitely NOT "whatever the cost". Also, please explain "whatever the cost". Does that mean, even if we have 30% unemployment? Or poor people can't buy cars anymore? Or food prices triple of quadruple? "Whatever the cost" is pretty dangerous, don't you think?


RE: DOE - Show us the test data
By NovoRei on 5/18/2012 5:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine that oil price doubles. I don`t have with me how much each market segment is dependent on oil but pick just transportation.

It would be more efficient to move production near to the customer. That means moving factories off US, overall. Unemployment, etc.

Another consequence would be inflation. Almost everything uses oil. It`s been 20 years since a big inflation in US. I don't need to tell what happened each time and why it happened. And I'm not even US resident.

"Whatever the cost" is a strong word. But I give you 3 options:

1) War to a foreign country to ensure low oil prices. Iran would be the perfect candidate.

2) Take no initiate and see factories, jobs, and public opinion vanish.

3) Invest huge amounts of money in new energy sources wisely or not. Even better, invest in many initiatives at the same time because US has the money. And watch the initiatives mature, produce results and make US energy matrix diversified. Not one or two sources dependent, but diversified. It has many benefits and gives the nation an advantage.

This is unfortunately/fortunately (depends on POV) is government's job because big corp. will not be pushing this. And this burden is being carried out by Obama despite congress overall old style thinking and election disputes.


RE: DOE - Show us the test data
By Kurz on 5/18/2012 3:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sugarcane Ethanol is much better than Corn Ethanol.

Ethanol doesn't increase horsepower.


RE: DOE - Show us the test data
By NovoRei on 5/18/2012 4:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
1) Yes but Corn Ethanol or Sugarcane will not/should not be the main source in the future.

2) No. It increases HP. Do your research.


Performance vs reliability
By AnnihilatorX on 5/17/2012 10:14:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(It) showed no statistically significant loss of vehicle performance."


So performance = reliability? Redefining words in a dictionary?




RE: Performance vs reliability
By rzrshrp on 5/17/2012 10:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
"Performance" in this case probably means any aspect of how it performs. Not just horsepower or top speed. Vehicle engine damage would be classified as a performance issue.

I don't trust automakers much more than politicians but I do hope that they take this E15 thing slowly. The DOE needs to tell us why the study that the automakers conducted gave bad data before I can believe them. This article makes it sound as if they're just dismissing the study because they conducted their own.


RE: Performance vs reliability
By aharris02 on 5/17/2012 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
It was a very weak deflection.

quote:
Our own tests showed a statistically insignificant loss in performance snark snark.

No jackass, we're saying it causes 25% of 'approved' engines to fail.

I'd also like to point out that "no statistically significant" possibly means they are writing off a 3% loss in performance observed to statistics, which makes this guy sound like a shill for the ethanol backers.


Feeding thier own agendas
By ketchup79 on 5/17/2012 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I have here is that each side is coming up with the exact results that will feed their agendas. Who would have guessed that. Too bad they can't use a group not promoting either agenda to generate such results. But I have little confidence that if a group not promoting either agenda started doing these tests, there wouldn't be money under the table to produce a biased result. I guess we'll just sit back and see which side will be the most persuasive.




RE: Feeding thier own agendas
By lightfoot on 5/17/2012 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that both sides are trying to rely on science to push their agenda. This should be done correctly, send a survey out to a bunch of people, and have them answer a bunch of questions.
Questions like:
"Are you a scientist?"
"Do you believe that E15 will harm an engine designed to use E10 fuel?"

Collect the results and then publish them by saying "90% of scientists say that E15 will damage engines."

After all, a consensus should trump experimentation and science in a democracy. Especially if it is a consensus of scientists.


RE: Feeding thier own agendas
By 91TTZ on 5/21/2012 10:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, a consensus should trump experimentation and science in a democracy. Especially if it is a consensus of scientists.


LOL, no it shouldn't.

If that was the case, we'd still believe that the Sun orbits the earth, since that was the prevailing belief at one time and a few rogue scientists with their "math" shouldn't have overruled the larger majority supported by the church and their beliefs.


Ethanol is not corrosive, .. but
By PaFromFL on 5/18/2012 9:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol itself may not be corrosive, but the water and crud that comes free of charge with it is. Also, ethanol-loving bacteria are known to accelerate cracking of pipeline steels so you have to wonder if cars are immune from this effect. High ethanol concentrations have been linked internal stress corrosion cracking in pipelines, which is very hard to detect.

E10 clogged my 2005 boat engine carburetor. The fuel filter was pristine, but the carburetor was clogged with grit that precipitated out when the fuel evaporated. E10 dissolved the fuel lines in my three Ryobi weed wackers, spilling gasoline in my garage. E10 split the gas tank in my lawnmower. E10 has destroyed older boats with internal gas tanks.

Based on long trips on I-95 back in 2008, I discovered that E-10 reduced my gas mileage around 10% with my 300C Hemi and around 7% with my 330i. Around town, my Saturn Astras suffered about a 10% loss (with a larger margin of error). This is much worse than the expected the energy density loss. Perhaps highly optimized modern engines are very sensitive to fuel quality.

Corn ethanol does not reduce net oil consumption, wastes diesel fuel for production and transportation, depletes the Midwest aquifers, destroys small engines, and drives up world food prices (destabilizing some poor countries). I’m not a big fan of class-action lawsuits, but something needs to be done about this scam.




By rontecat on 5/18/2012 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Lower engine/fuel system life, plus, as a bonus, 2-3% worse fuel economy over E10. All for the same low gas price. Sign me up!

http://www.crcao.org/reports/recentstudies2012/CM-...


E85 higher static compression ratio?
By Rob94hawk on 5/18/2012 11:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading that you can run a higher static CR on the street with E85 around 14:1. I'll have to read up on this.

Currently I'm running E10, not like I have a choice, and put 425rwhp/380rwtq to the tires at ~11.6:1. I wonder if I increase the static CR to 13:1 with E85 I'll see decent gains on the dyno?

I miss the days of Sunoco 94 at the pump..




By Mike Acker on 5/19/2012 8:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
you can still buy racing fuel...


So
By Jahooba on 5/17/2012 10:59:29 AM , Rating: 1
So the government is going to force oil companies to buy a product and add it to their existing products? This smells just as unconstitutional as the Obamacare mandate.




RE: So
By lightfoot on 5/17/2012 12:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
The difference, for those of you who don't (or won't) see it, is that the government in this case is regulating an economic activity, but with health care they are not.

IF you sell fuel, it MUST meet this standard.

With the health care the mandate, IF you are alive, you must buy health insurance.

Choosing to not buy or sell fuel is an option. Choosing not to remain alive is (for non-liberals) not an option.

Offing one's self is not a valid "opt out." Although I would not restrict the option (being pro-choice and all.)


unacceptable
By chromal on 5/17/2012 11:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
I have there no problem with an E10, E15, or E85 existing, but I don't like the idea of feeding those fuels to my '96, '98 cars, which were not really designed with it in mind. Even my 2010 Mazda3 goes out of its way to instruct its owners not to exceed E10, with warnings of likely powertrain damage.

Unless the EPA is going to warranty and repair my vehicles should *anything* go wrong with the fuel delivery or powertrain that comes into contact with E15, they need to sit down and shut up.




E15
By mott555 on 5/17/2012 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
Makes me glad my truck runs on diesel and not gasoline. This better not hurt my motorcycle though.




Quit $$$$#in
By dsquare86 on 5/17/2012 8:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Lets just go make some moonshine and have a good time.




In New Zealand...
By createcoms on 5/18/2012 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
My E10 fuel uses ethanol made as part of the dairy factory pre-existing process (no corn involved). And they said my car would blow up if I ran it on the E10. It continues to run.




immiscibility
By Mike Acker on 5/19/2012 7:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
alcohol and gasoline are immiscibile. the idea a E10, or E15, or E85 is rubbish. not only is ethanol production inefficient the mixture of ethanol with gasoline is a poor idea: it reduces energy and can damage engines. if any water gets into the mix the ethanol will separate from the gasoline and the vehicle will not run.

Ethanol mix is just part of the left's war on personal transportation

if you want top burn ethanol you would use a 5% nitro mix




Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By tayb on 5/17/2012 10:33:10 AM , Rating: 3
For step 4 you'll have to go a lot farther than that. The only candidate I can think of that I honestly believe would follow through on 1-3 would be Ron Paul. Talk is cheap, voting records tell the real story.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By michael67 on 5/17/2012 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
That's what you get if the brainless get to vote.

From all the Republicans, he was the only one i trusted a little to do the right thing!

But telling the truth is uselessly not very popular.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 4
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By EstebanYobs on 5/17/2012 11:04:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you think Paul is the only viable candidate, you haven't looked into Gary Johnson. I suggest you do so ASAP. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By steven975 on 5/18/2012 8:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
I like RP, but he does have some fatal flaws that GJ doesn't have.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By icemansims on 5/17/2012 10:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
1. That's fine. No problems there.
2. You're out of your mind. You do realize that big business would be dumping all kinds of toxic waste wherever it was convenient if there WASN'T an EPA
3. I don't think that means what you think it means. NHTSA is what regulates the safety features in vehicles.
4. ANYONE is going a little far, but I'm not sure he's the man for the job... Of course, since our other choice this time around is Mitt, I think we're stuck with him for another 4 years.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By superflex on 5/17/2012 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize every state has its own version of the EPA which is resposible for enforcement within its borders.
The USEPA is a progressive clusterfuck.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By yomamafor1 on 5/17/2012 11:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
Except each state have a different standard to environment conservatism. You'd have states like California which has the most stringent regulation, while states like Alabama will have little to no regulation. However, whether it is Alabama or California, they all belong to United States. And when companies dump toxic waters in states like AL, they're still trashing United States.

I'd argue a federal EPA is absolutely required to set an universal standard for the nation, while states EPAs can elect to have more regulations if they see fit.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
This coming from the King of trolling.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By twhittet on 5/17/2012 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, we should throw out any system that's not perfect. Like the EPA.


By ClownPuncher on 5/17/2012 12:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, Germany is a crap country because HOLOCAUST!

/s

State rights actually benefit people.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:51:52 AM , Rating: 3
But seriously. Protecting the environment on a state level??

Perhaps Colorado decides dumping nuclear waste in it's rivers is acceptable. Well, now you have most of the Missouri River/Mississippi River, Colorado River states downstream fraked because Colorado wants to save a few bucks.

BBBBBBBBrilliant!!


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By bah12 on 5/17/2012 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good point. That would really happen. /sarcasm
That did happen with the over damning of the Colorado river. No waste per se, but flow rate severely impacted down stream states.

Now I totally agree with you the EPA should be far far smaller, and only deal with specific inter-state disputes.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
See. Another POV, and you attack it with insults and assumptions based on your own biased rationalizations.

But, I am the child.

The constitution does not ban murder. The constitution is a guideline for running a government that protects the rights of EVERY citizen. So how does murder get one put in jail or executed?? How does a murderer get brought before a jury and it's peers?? Hmmm..

Government agencies have been developed by publically elected officials to try to ensure equal rights and equal protection for everyone. And federal agencies exist to oversee issues that span multiple states. I.E. the FBI. EPA. Etc. Etc.

The nuclear thing is a metaphor. Obvious exaggeration to prove a point.

These are clearly lost on you.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By twhittet on 5/17/2012 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Says the king of all militant, immature, trolls.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 6:36:51 PM , Rating: 1
Rec's not militant but a lot of you act like you are. Sure, he's a staunch conservative but at least he's reasonable. I can't hammer in an opposing viewpoint with some of you guys without a personal attack or just plain stubbornness. I find it a bit amusing at times considering how I am.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By superflex on 5/17/2012 11:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
To make a statement that Alabama has little to no regulation shows your ignorance of the topic.
Does Alabama get out of enforcing CERCLA, MACT, RCRA, TSCA, CAA, CWA or any other federally mandated regulations?
Are their underground storage tank or solid waste regulations not protective of human health or the environment?
Maybe you should have a juice box and snack after your nap and before you go spouting off on the interwebs.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 12:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you should have a juice box and snack after your nap and before you go spouting off on the interwebs.


Well you have to understand how the typical Liberal views the "south". It's a cesspool of gun-toting militia members, uneducated morons (because only a moron would vote Republican), oh and everyone is racist of course.

But remember, this is the group of people who espouse "acceptance and coexistence" in all things. As long as you're also a Liberal, of course. Doesn't apply to anyone else.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By superflex on 5/17/2012 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
Kind of like how Manny Pacquiao has been banned from a mall in CA because of his mis-reported views on gay marraige.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By twhittet on 5/17/2012 2:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see how that works on state borders. Gee, I wonder what one of the most common borderline is? A river. Get 2 states to agree on that, let alone anything else.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/12, Rating: -1
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Kaldor on 5/17/2012 11:39:50 AM , Rating: 1
I dont generally agree with Reclaimer, but he raises some valid points here and people rate him down anyway. Many government agencies are there to do nothing but protect their own jobs.

The EPA is a good thing, however they have their fingers into too many things that dont concern them. Yes, keeping an eye on big business is good, let the Feds do that.

NHTSA is an antiquated pile of crap. Another example of a "CYA and collect a paycheck" type agency....

And yeah, Obama, bad. I dont need to go any further with that. Not that the White Obama (Romney) is any better. I had hoped that people would pull their head out of their ass this year and put Ron Paul up against Obama, but that is another entirely different can of worms.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By icemansims on 5/17/2012 12:14:02 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I don't disagree that the agencies need overhauled, but the elimination is not the way to go. Making something illegal is all well and good, but if you don't have enforcement, then it doesn't mean much. See: illegal immigration.
As for Obama/Romney argument....I'm sorry, my biggest problem with both, and worse with Romney, is the catering to the financial sector. 15% taxes for millionaires because they invested their money (instead of their time) to make money is ludicrous.
While I don't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, Romney would be a disaster unless you're already wealthy. It will be the return of the aristocracy and serfdom.
Limited government SOUNDS all well and good, but when the alternative is control by corporations rather than the government, I'll take the government. At least those rat bastards I can get rid of.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By cashkennedy on 5/17/2012 2:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
The president doesnt pass laws that have those kinds of effects, the congress does. So how exactly is Romney going to change all the tax rates and destroy the world.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By icemansims on 5/17/2012 6:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm well aware of this. You are still aware that most legislation stems originally from the executive branch, though, aren't you?

Besides, we're talking about enforcement:
The FTC (as an example) regulates business practices and reports to (guess who) the president. If the mandate from the oval office is to reduce regulation, i.e. exercise "enforcement discretion", which, by the way, is a well used policy in the entire executive branch, then you probably would have seen the duopoly between VZW and AT&T (T-Mobile acquisition). That has nothing to do with passing or not passing of laws. Even if you removed the EPA (as another example), you'd still have to have SOMEONE enforce the environmental laws on the books. This argument is solely about how enforcement is or isn't done.
Look, I'm not for a nanny state or a welfare state, but I against "buyer beware" policies and policies that allow the big corporate guys to run roughshod over the public.
Romney is way too pro big business. Obama isn't MUCH better, but he almost couldn't be any worse. Well, maybe if Scott Walker ran...


By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 7:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah cause being anti "big business" has been proven to boost economic recovery. Great way to help unemployment too.

Obama isn't for big business, this is a common mistake. He's for cronyism, scoring political points, and getting reelected. In his heart he believes in Marxism, not Capitalism.

But since you apparently, like so many others, think big business is a dirty word I guess that's a good thing?


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By ppardee on 5/17/2012 1:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
The alternative to the EPA is strong property rights. If you dump all kinds of toxic waste and it gets into the water I own the rights to, I sue the living bejesus out of you and get compensation for the lost of my property.

This allows for better control over environmental protections and less overhead for companies that are responsible. It is also more flexible. If the run-off from your farm is causing excess fertilizer to run into my lake and causing a reduction in fish populations (which I want high so I can fish/let others fish), we can negotiate a reasonable level of run-off, compensation for the loss of revenue, or compensation to get the lake restocked. There isn't a black-and-white maximum level and it doesn't take decades for changes to make their way thru the legislature.

It's not ideal, but it is better than an incompetent government organization running rough-shod over businesses en masse.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:43:28 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 11:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Once again BS displays his amazing lack of maturity.

Not saying Bush was a great President, but how does a photo gallery of obviously unflattering split-seconds in time make a point exactly? You could do the same thing with Obama or ANYONE for that matter.

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/files/2009/0...

oh look! Here's Obama trying to cast a spell while pouting! Oohh ahahaha OOOHHH, good one. What a terrible President. Like really BS?

Seriously kid, are you in middle school or something? What's next, fart jokes?


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
LMFAO.

I am just keeping things on a level that you understand. You do not accept ANY other point of view. Especially those based on facts.

SOOOOO. Figured pictures will help.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 1
I rather talk about the issues than get into a sparring match with another person. You've devoted a lot of time lately either attacking me or making personal comments. If you haven't noticed, this doesn't work in shutting me up or changing what I'm saying.

It's your time, do with it what you will. But I think you're showing a side of yourself here that's not very flattering. "LMFAO's" followed by personal slams might work in some places, but not here.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 12:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Who wants to shut you up?? It amuses us all!! Continue ranting!


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Spuke on 5/17/2012 7:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who wants to shut you up?? It amuses us all!! Continue ranting!
It amuses you, leave the rest of us out of it.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 11:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Also, I didn't post a rant saying ANYONE but Bush.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By Schrag4 on 5/17/2012 12:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
4 years later and libs still think a vote against Obama is a vote for Bush.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By mezrah on 5/17/2012 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
4 years later and the repubs think a vote against Obama is a vote for sombody better.


RE: Make the World a Better Place
By BSMonitor on 5/17/2012 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Again, I never said anyone but Bush.

I voted for him the second time, because it seemed like he was going to lead us through Iraq and Afghanistan. That he knew what he was talking about in terms of eliminating the Terrorist threat.

Turns out my initial impression in 2000 was right. He really was a completely incompetent fool.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2012 4:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
LOL you know I just love how people say I'm crazy, and then say Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. If you think I want to cut the budget and federal departments, maybe you should study some of his plans and agendas. Compared to Paul I'm a flaming Liberal lol.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki