Print 118 comment(s) - last by RU482.. on Mar 21 at 3:54 PM

More ethanol coming to pumps near you
New blend will work in any vehicle built back to 2001

The EPA is set to finalize use of a new ethanol/gasoline that might be in pumps at your local station this summer.

The current 10% blend will be replaced by a 15% blend that is expected to be available in time for the heavy summer driving season. The EPA approved the raising of the ethanol content to 15% in January -- corn farmers and the ethanol industry understandably welcomed the ruling.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told the Senate Agriculture Committee during a hearing, "We are now in the process of completing a rule that will establish national labeling. We expect to issue a final rule in the next few months." The labeling will help protect the consumer from using the new fuel in an unapproved engine.

The EPA will officially register E15 this spring, which is a requirement before the fuel can be sold at the pump. The agency has also recently received the emissions and health information to support the registration and is currently reviewing that information.

Not everyone is behind the plan to raise ethanol content in gasoline through. Critics say that using more corn for fuel will drive already high corn process up to even higher levels. Ethanol trade group Growth Energy notes that more ethanol will help people fighting fuel prices at the pump. Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis said, "Lifting the regulatory barriers preventing higher blends of U.S.-made ethanol from getting into the pump would start to push gas prices down right away."

The new E15 fuel can be used in all vehicles built since 2001. That means that 74% of all gasoline burning vehicles on the road will be able to use the new fuel accounting for 85% of gasoline demand. 

UPDATED: Justin Starkey, owner of VMP Tuning, had this to say about the new 15% ethanol blend and what it means for fuel economy and auto enthusiasts:

It basically hurts everyone… 

Fuel economy goes down, because of the lower energy content in the ethanol.

If you have a turbocharged or supercharge vehicle with high fuel demands at WOT, it will push your injector and fuel pump duty cycles higher.

Having more ethanol in the gas makes tuning cars more difficult and more inconsistent.  The ethanol level in the gasonline is not always held at a full 15%.  It can be all over the place from one fillup to the next.  If your car is tuned with a wideband while running 15% ethanol, and then you run fuel with no ethanol in it, you’re air to fuel ratio can shift over a point richer. This is huge from a tuning standpoint in terms of power and efficiency.  The OEMs have realized this and most 2011+ Fords including the Mustang GT and Shelby GT500 use widebands from the factory.  These vehicles are closed loop at WOT (wide open throttle) and are constantly correcting air/fuel ratio at all operating conditions.  The PCM keeps the actual A/F and the commanded A/F the same, this is great for performance, efficiency, reliability, and safety.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What About Y2K and Older Cars
By jah1subs on 3/14/2011 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
In our family, the vehicles are 1999 car, 2000 car and 2001 minivan.

What are we supposed to do when we pull into a gas station that does not have 10% Ethanol fuel?

Shane, perhaps you left this information out of your post?!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 3
I think that the EPA would prefer that you junk your clunker and get a shiny new Volt. Do it for the planet!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By invidious on 3/14/2011 1:37:16 PM , Rating: 4
Nothing says eco friendly like hundred of pounds of batteries made of completely non-renewable rare earth metals. Go earth!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By spamreader1 on 3/14/2011 1:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
What about yard equipment? My brand new tiller, and both mowers (riding 1yr and push 2yr old) have warnings to not use any fuel with greater than 10% ethenol content. (all 3 are troy built, 2 with briggs motors, the other with kholer)

I also wonder about gas engine farm equipment. Wonder how the 'ol Ford 8/9N's will handle it?

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By YashBudini on 3/14/2011 9:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing says eco friendly like hundred of pounds of batteries made of completely non-renewable rare earth metals.

Which are recharged by electricity from coal. YEEHAW!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By ddopson on 3/14/2011 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
This is a common misconception.

While coal is a "dirtier" fuel than natural gas or even oil, a large-scale coal power plant is extremely efficient at extracting energy from the fuel source -- far more efficient than a small internal combustion engine required to operate across a wide range of torque, RPM, and temperature ranges. Even after transmission losses, conversion losses, and everything else required to get that electrical energy to the wheels, a coal powered PHEV is much more efficient than a gasoline powered engine -- fewer $ of electricity vs $ of gas, fewer tonnes of CO2 emitted, and smaller concentrations of most other pollutants.

If your electricity is backed by Nuclear or a renewable source, so much the better. However, even dirty coal electricity is a cleaner, greener fuel than a gasoline powered engine.

Crazy, right? So why don't we all use electricity? - power density and energy density. ie, batteries. It's hard to build a good battery. It's easy to build a fuel tank. Eventually, odds are that we will run the vast majority of transport vehicles on electricity. In the meantime, don't let some treehugger tell you you are a bad person for using a nice cheap efficient old school car. My 97 Camry will continue running for years to come.

By YashBudini on 3/15/2011 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
All those that want the next coal plant built in this guy's backyard raise your hands.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Azethoth on 3/14/2011 10:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just like other metals it is not renewable because it does not grow on trees yet, but it IS infinitely recyclable.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2011 1:38:06 PM , Rating: 1
This is all part of our Obamanations plan. Take one for the team! (To be fair though, Ethanol started to be pushed by the Bush administration but it doesn't really matter, they're all in on it through kickbacks).

Ethanol is such a ridiculous idea. Gee, lets burn up all our food so we can put gas in our cars. Wait, lets think about this for a minute.


You don't see it? You need to look deeper.

Americans are fat. What? Yes, they're fat. Movies like Wall-E and Super Size Me say we are. So, it must be true, right?

Everyone knows that because Americans are fat, we have to buy big SUV's so our bellies don't hit the steering wheels, so we can fit our rotund kids in the back and to tow bigger boats hat have more room for our fat behinds in them. Most importantly, Americans need more SUV's so they can fit more buckets of KFC in the back!

So, those crafty goons up in Washington have it all figured out. If they switch to Ethanol, they'll save us money on gas. They'll also raise our food prices. What? Raise our food prices? Of course it will. They have to use all that land now to farm for our cars and not us. So, food that is edible will be at a premium because it has less land to be farmed on.

So, by raising food prices, they force America to fight its obesity epidemic. Don't you see it, folks? This is nationalized healthcare at work, at the gas pumps! They're already pushing it down our throats. ;) Whether we like it, or not. :P

I guess the Government needs to hire Richard Simmons as its spokesperson for Ethanol dressed up like Mr. Body (or whatever he called it back in the 70's and 80's). Buy Ethanol. Help lower gas prices. Help you lose weight.

The bottom line is, Ethanol does nothing to help. It just shifts our costs from one thing to another. So gas will cost less, food will now cost more.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By sleepeeg3 on 3/14/2011 2:33:11 PM , Rating: 5
The only benefit to ethanol is to make rich some already subsidized megafarmers in Iowa. The rest of the nation gets:
1. Worse fuel economy
2. Higher food prices
3. Hose erosion, gasket degradation and engine corrosion from the water byproduct (C2H6O + 3O2 + fire = 2CO2 + 3H2O)
4. Higher gas prices (Why? It takes more oil to grow corn than it does to produce ethnaol)
5. Increased pollution (see above)
6. Higher taxes (higher gas prices = more money in taxes collected by the states/government)

This is madness and it needs to stop.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2011 3:10:10 PM , Rating: 4
Sheesh. Nobody on here has a sense of humor today. :)

You're right, and have eloquently explained the atrocity of Ethanol. I refuse to support such a sham, yet, through government fisting, am forced to bend over and take it at the pump. They have big fists, too, might I add. It hurts.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Solandri on 3/14/2011 7:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
Corn ethanol is the atrocity. Other types of ethanol actually work out ok economically. Brazil has a fairly successful sugar cane ethanol program.

Long-term, I think alcohol-based fuels are going to pan out as the better way to go as an energy storage medium. It's easier to convert plant matter into alcohols than into more complex hydrocarbons like diesel. My hunch is it'll turn out to be easier to adopt our engines to run off alcohol than to bio-engineer our plants to produce diesel. So while corn ethanol is evil, I think we should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater by referring to it as just ethanol.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Snow01 on 3/14/2011 3:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
You know how much these online petitions help..but someone has one started anyways.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:38:32 PM , Rating: 2

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By SirKronan on 3/15/2011 1:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
I signed it to, and posted it to FB just to spread the info.

By YashBudini on 3/15/2011 2:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
Signed - yes.
Holding breath - no.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By sxr7171 on 3/14/2011 4:14:20 PM , Rating: 3
I would pay extra for real gasoline instead of this E15 shit.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By titanmiller on 3/14/2011 10:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I refuse to believe that it takes more oil to grow corn than you get from the ethanol it produces. Lets say that you get a modest yield of 150 bushels/acre. You get an ethanol yield of 2.5 gallons per bushel. That is 375 gallons per acre. Do you expect me to believe that it takes 375 gallons of fuel to farm one acer? NOPE! And I do realize that 1 gallon of oil does not equal 1 gallon of diesel, but it is still way out of the range of numbers we are talking about.

Yields of over 200 bushels per acre are not uncommon.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By marvdmartian on 3/15/2011 8:53:20 AM , Rating: 1
Your logic is flawed, somewhat.

It's not just the amount of ethanol production from the fossil fuel used (speaking of which, you can't use ethanol to run farm machinery, which skews the whole equation even further).

It's the energy density of ethanol, versus fossil fuels. Ethanol doesn't give you the same energy per volume unit, so you need more of it to get the same amount of energy production.

The greater the ratio of ethanol to gasoline, the lower the energy production. My old work truck, which could be powered by E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline), got 2/3 the fuel economy as it did with E10 gasoline (the current standard). Instead of the 15-16 mpg we got (city type driving) previously, with E10 gasoline, we suddenly plunged to 10 mpg on E85.

E15 won't give as drastic of a change in economy, but it WILL make a difference. And this doesn't even touch the fact that we continue to use land previously used for food crops for fuel production. And that just ain't right!!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By RU482 on 3/21/2011 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, it would be much better if we went with the Brazilian model and cut down the rain forests to make sugar for ethanol

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Zoomer on 3/15/2011 12:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the fertilizer.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By randomly on 3/15/2011 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 5
There have been detailed studies on the energy input and output of corn ethanol. Some come up with negative energy gain, some positive, but they are all very close to 1:1 energy return.
After much controversy from Pimentels original research which showed corn ethanol was actually using more energy than it produced there were numerous studies trying to prove otherwise.
But even Argonne labs research only came up with an energy gain of 1.3, energy in to energy out. And this was only because they counted all the energy in the corn waste products that could be used for cattle feed.

This is only valid on a small scale, they admitted that large scale corn ethanol production would produce so much waste product that there would be no reasonable use for it, and again you are back to a break even.

But the break even doesn't cover the billions of dollars a year in tax payers money that goes to the corn growers (mostly to Archer Daniels Midland corporation) for Ethanol subsidies.
There is no advantage in subsidizing corn ethanol in hopes it will improve substantially. The efficiency is never going to get much better because of the intrinsic limitations of corn as an ethanol feedstock.

Corn Ethanol is never going to produce any kind of environmental help. It does more damage than benefits.

As mentioned above, the cost to consumers is not only in the price of the fuel to consumers, but the taxes they have to pay for the subsidies, the increased wear on the engines and maintenance costs, greatly increased food prices.

On top of all those wonderful things is that corn farming contributes to top soil erosion. Top soil accumulates at only about 1 inch per 500 years. Corn farming can erode away an inch in less than a decade. Destroying our farm lands for a subsidized break even biofuel project that has no hope of ever yielding positive results is just idiocy.

There are also the issues of fertilizer and pesticide runoff poisoning the water shed and making dead zones in rivers and deltas. The enormous consumption of fresh water from our limited water resources is another unmentioned burden.

Both McCain and Obama said something needed to be done about the corn ethanol subsidies during their campaigns. However the Corn ethanol lobby is so strong that not only has nothing been done about this theft from the American public, but now they've managed to increase the size of the swindle by 50% with the increase to 15% ethanol blend.

This kind of corporate abuse of the American political system is very disheartening, especially when it is so obvious yet nothing seems to be able to stop them. It does not bode well for the future of this country.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Sivar on 3/21/2011 2:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
I really like posts based on mere facts, from all sides, rather than the author's political beliefs.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Dr of crap on 3/14/2011 12:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
There will be seperate pumps for E10 and E15.
That is why there was such a fight to get the E15 out. The cost to a station is high.
And Auto makers don't like it either.

The last I heard about a week ago was that the roll out was delayed.
I think this story is old!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Will there be any requirement for stations to carry both? If not, I predict that only the E15 will actually be available. All you'll be able to do write a sad letter to Obama/Lisa Jackson about having to trash your perfectly functioning car for a new one so that they can laugh and then ignore you. Or if they reply, they can let you know about what fine vehicles that GM and Chrysler are producing.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By rcc on 3/14/2011 3:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they are willing to right the check, I'm ok with it!

Ok, no, I"m not, but I'll fake it.

By RedemptionAD on 3/16/2011 1:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
Money from the government is money from the people. If you are going to get money from the government, you should be providing something that is worth it for the people it comes from.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Dr of crap on 3/14/2011 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Since there are a fair number of older cars, and since the newness will cause uncertainty, and since you are NOT FORCED to use E15, most will want to use E10.

SO the stations will have to offer both E10, and E15.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 10:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not forced to use it, the stations won't be forced to use it, but yet that may be all that is offered to them. It would be expensive for refiners to double the blends that they create. And many areas get their gasoline from pipelines, it would be twice as difficult to handle additional products through the pipelines.

Also, it seems likely that in the open, the new rules would "allow" E15, while also in the fine print or through some other more stealthy means it would be forced. Why would the EPA bother to spend so much effort and controversy on this rule if they didn't intend to make sure that it accomplished the end goal?

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 12:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention how most lawnmowers that people have aren't even guaranteed to work with E10 much less E15.

Consumers should all band together and sue the EPA for approving products that destroy people's property. My parents have a 94 Honda Accord that runs great. It's survived with E10 but who knows if they'll be so lucky with E15.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By sxr7171 on 3/14/2011 4:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Class action lawsuit? I'm in. They have no right to rape my car. I'll have to replace my turbos every 2 years with this.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By gduzan on 3/14/2011 1:10:19 PM , Rating: 5
All the benefits of Cash For Clunkers without having to shell out for the Cash part. Brilliant!

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Hiawa23 on 3/14/2011 1:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that sucks. I have a 1997 Honda Civic which get 30+ MPG & I have a 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart 2.4l, gets lower 20s MPG. I commute 56miles a day to work, my Lancer gets 250-260miles a tank, while the old Honda with 225,000 miles gets 300+miles to the tank plus cost $4-7 less per tank to fill it up. I have to fill up the Lancer 5 times a month, & recently started driving the Honda cause it gets better mileage. I am not buying another car nor can I afford to, so what about us? Looks like we are going to be screwed. I am glad to help the planet but the planet doesn't have to pay my mortgage or student loan, or pay for my daughter's school. Middle or lower class just can't catch a break.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Hiawa23 on 3/14/2011 1:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that sucks. I have a 1997 Honda Civic which get 30+ MPG & I have a 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart 2.4l, gets lower 20s MPG. I commute 56miles a day to work, my Lancer gets 250-260miles a tank, while the old Honda with 225,000 miles gets 300+miles to the tank plus cost $4-7 less per tank to fill it up. I have to fill up the Lancer 5 times a month, & recently started driving the Honda cause it gets better mileage. I am not buying another car nor can I afford to, so what about us? Looks like we are going to be screwed. I am glad to help the planet but the planet doesn't have to pay my mortgage or student loan, or pay for my daughter's school. Just can't catch a break.

By Shane McGlaun on 3/14/2011 2:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea, I guess some will still have 10%. I hope they do, that is what my car is tuned for.

RE: What About Y2K and Older Cars
By Wolfpup on 3/14/2011 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 4
I'm wondering this too. I've got a 2000 and a I think neither of them would work with this.

Aside from that, we now know Ethanol actually uses more energy than it saves, so the whole thing is a sham...

So...they really, really shouldn't be doing this.

By BioHazardous on 3/14/2011 12:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
So when we only get about 300 gallons per acre of corn, we figure it's such a winning proposition that we should require more ethanol to be added to gas? This almost makes sense.

RE: Awesome
By Samus on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
The bigger problem is that the automakers have big concerns over the increased ethanol and its effect on the fuel system. Also, the E15 absorbs water more easily, so your gas will go bad faster. All a car needs for calibrating the fuel mixture is a composition sensor that detects how much ethanol is in the fuel and the tuning parameters for it. This is the easy part.

Don't feel bad, though, just more pork for the corn farmers.

RE: Awesome
By bah12 on 3/14/2011 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
Don't feel bad, though, just more pork for the corn farmers.
I know screw those bently driving yuppies, I hate it when I see all these douchebag farmers acting like their sH*t don't stink. /sarcasm

Seriously of all the corrupt professions in the US, I don't rank the "pork" ridden farmers in my list of concerns. Now all the Warren Buffets of the world that trade in large volumes of commodities such as corn, well that would be a proper group to be trimming the "pork" from.

RE: Awesome
By zinfamous on 3/14/2011 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, I don't think you get it. Corn farmers grow the corn simply because they are paid to do it--not from selling the corn itself--because it is an unprofitable crop--but because the Feds pay them to do it.

"pork-ridden" is also completely unfair. These guys aren't rolling in cash by growing corn, they are living comfortably sure, but many of the Iowa growers seem to think the whole affair is ridiculous, and would very well be off growing something worth-while, if the Feds didn't pay them to grow non-consumable items (some 80% of the corn now grown in this country is unpalatable--it is grown for animal feed and now ethanol production).

Buffet is not your boogeyman, and neither are the farmers.

RE: Awesome
By bah12 on 3/14/2011 2:53:05 PM , Rating: 3
Hence the /sarcasm tag. The OP was the one who was chastising the "pork" for these farmers. Like you said, and I agree, I hardly think the corn farmer is the source of any corruption/controversy.

RE: Awesome
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
You say that "pork-ridden" is unfair, yet bemoan the effects of the pork-fest in the same paragraph! I'm not saying that family farmers are rolling in dough. As you say, they're being paid to grow non-consumable crops instead of something useful for food but rather for this ethanol debacle. So, we waste tax money to pay them to grow ethanol crops that really don't benefit anyone, rather than just growing food. Also, remember that the big corporate farms get subsidized as well, not just the family farm.

RE: Awesome
By mindless1 on 3/15/2011 2:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
If the farmers choose to do it they are to blame. Like welfare, a person can choose not to take the handout, to either grow that "worth-while" crop instead, or find another line of work.

The government does not put a gun to their heads and force them to grow corn! They are leeches.

RE: Awesome
By jah1subs on 3/14/2011 4:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Above 10% ethanol, I worry at what strength of ethanol, below E85 (85% Ethanol), should one be driving a flex fuel system with no rubber and other parts that can be damaged by the ethanol.

RE: Awesome
By Iaiken on 3/14/2011 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you've never seen this study:

The overall results of the program were not conclusive insofar as no clear trends in the overall performance of all equipment could be established. New and used equipment such as shear valves, flow limiters, submersible turbine pumps, and hoses generally performed well. Some new and used equipment demonstrated a reduced level of safety or performance, or both, during either long-term exposure or performance tests. Dispenser meter/manifold/valve assemblies in particular demonstrated largely noncompliant results. Nozzles, breakaways, and swivels, both new and used, experienced noncompliant results during performance testing. Responses of nonmetals, primarily gaskets and seals, were involved with these noncompliances.

There is a reason why Germans boycotted 91 octane fuel that was forced upon them by their government. BMW had previously tested 91 with 10% and 15% ethanol and ruled it in non-compliance with your warranty because of the extensive damage that it could do to the aluminum valve train, high pressure fuel pumps and injector mixers. If you took your car in for any of the above problems, BMW/MINI will test your fuel and anything above 5% ethanol is non-compliant and voids your warranty because both the warranty and owners manual states specifically that you must use 91 octane with 0% ethanol.

For cars that are dialed in for ethanol and do not use aluminum valve trains/manifolds or heated injector mixers, or high pressure fuel pumps that were not designed to deal with the increased density that water so absorbed by the ethanol causes, or if your classic car doesn't have a fully sealed gas tank.

No thanks! Owners of such cars need to get together and throw a class action against the EPA to prevent them from mandating ethanol in 91 octane. At the very least, consumers should have a choice and companies should not be held liable for designs predating the addition of ethanol being adversely affected by its use.

RE: Awesome
By tastyratz on 3/14/2011 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 4
Ill understood.

Turbocharged engines can run more efficiently under positive pressure when you have higher octanes to reduce chance of knock, but modern gas engines with direct injection negate a LOT of that now. This does not impact your gas mileage per say, but reduce your momentary full throttle efficiency of sorts. E85 has become the new race gas for many even if it costs more per mile (compared to airplane fuel it does not though)

Ethanol has a higher octane rating and can result in more overall horsepower
76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
B. 116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline

Another consideration? going to e15 will not mean higher octanes at the pump, it means gas companies can now use a lower grade gas with that ethanol boost to meet those same pump ratings. For your performance gain you will see nothing at all.

Ethanol is roughly 1/3 less energy dense compared to gasoline in practice. No matter what engine you put it in you have the same figures. Replace your 30mpg fuel with e100 and get 20mpg in the same car. Since we are not doing a complete swap this figure lands someplace in between. The pooch receiving the screwing is the consumer. We are being forced to relinquish our older and classic cars for a new fuel that while it might lower gas prices, unless it lowers the price in relation to the change in gas mileage (which I assure you it won't) then it will effectively cost us more at the pump.

My wife and I own 5 cars, none older than 2001. I cringed at e10 and this e15 business irritates me.

RE: Awesome
By Philippine Mango on 3/14/2011 10:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
RFTM.. 99% chance that the owners manuals says the car can use fuels with up to 10% ethanol content.. Prove me wrong by listing your vehicles if you so choose.

RE: Awesome
By tastyratz on 3/15/2011 12:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
civic? owners manual says 2004 or newer.

prelude? not listed... but no Honda s older than 2003 list as far as I can find.

My Nissan's? Nissan says only for cars manufactured since January 1st 2004.

By all technicality I should not run even e10. It will not cause instant catastrophic failure per say... but nonetheless.

RE: Awesome
By Iaiken on 3/15/2011 1:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
up to 10% ethanol content

There is no way you can guarantee that you will only get 10%. When they pipe the fuel from the filling station to the truck, the fuel is separated by a 'plug' of ethanol that gets into even those fuels that are supposed to contain 0%.

There have already been spot tests that have found E10 stations can contain anywhere from 8% to 14% ethanol already. This also means that there is a good chance that it contains anywhere from 1% to 2% water by volume.

In North America there is a funny consumer law that requires the manufacturer to provide you with any product that they specifically require you to use for the maintenance of your car. The more specific they are, the bigger the chance of getting nailed. For example, MINI recently started offering free oil changes for the life of the warranty because the required you to use a specific full synthetic by Castrol in order to keep your warranty.

So instead of specifying that you need to use Shell V-Power with 0% ethanol, they state that you can use anything that contains up to 10% (but in Germany this number is 0%). What does this tell you? Instead of going against the government and possibly having to supply drivers with gasoline, they have taken the other road of letting you run up to 10% and just replacing your fuel pumps and filters when they finally pitch a fit (and they will). I guarantee you they WILL test your fuel and if you are 11% ethanol or higher, they will void the warranty for your drive train. I've seen it happen and there are documented cases of it all over the net and the MINI community.

The problems with the BMW 335's high pressure fuel pumps were also traced back to E10 gasoline with some cars going through as many as 2 pumps per year.

This is definitely one of those cases where you need to be careful not to step in the bullsh*t because it can be might expensive to fix the resultant problems.

RE: Awesome
By Iaiken on 3/15/2011 2:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
If you are interested in reading more see this:

The upper tier of automobile manufacture basically come right out and say (indirectly of course) that ethanol is cr*p and causes them tons of headaches when it comes to reliability.

RE: Awesome
By tviceman on 3/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome
By YashBudini on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
By formulav8 on 3/14/2011 12:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
My cars engine(LS1) already pings like crazy with 93 Octane and 10% corn. Now they want me to melt my pistons or burn a valve? I can't hardly even find a non-ethanol gas pump in Columbia, SC anymore. So i'm stuck with the ethanol pumps. :(


RE: Argg
By Marlin1975 on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Argg
By formulav8 on 3/14/2011 1:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
You know pinging isn't always about being low on octane?

Ethanol burns warmer than typical gas and that can cause pinging in itself. According to my computer mointoring with LS1 edit there is a notable difference in ping with ethanol laced gas compared to typical 93 gasoline. I have looked into this before.

RE: Argg
By Hiawa23 on 3/14/2011 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a K&N filter (or other "high flow" filter) take it out and put in a paper one then clean your MAF sensor.

I have K & N filters in both my cars. why would you tell him to take them out & put the paper one in? I thought the K&N was better...

RE: Argg
By Marlin1975 on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Argg
By Samus on 3/14/2011 10:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
My old 3000GT VR4 used to suck paper FRAM filters into the ductwork because they couldn't flow enough. The K&N box filter worked fine for years and maintained a 'factory' appearance. I'm not a huge fan of cold air intakes, especially in the winter and wet weather.

RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/15/2011 7:19:26 AM , Rating: 1
I've run my GTO and Vararam intake, which is an over the radiator style intake, without the hood plugs which stop water from coming in in the pouring down rain without issue. A few drops of water getting in isn't going to hurt anything. Water injection is used all the time in drag applications.

As long as your intake isn't in a position to suck up water if you drive through a large and deep puddle, you're fine. A buddy of mine has his intake down below his car and has never had an issue. Unless he ran through a 2 foot deep puddle for a few seconds with the filter fully submerged, he won't have an issue.

VR4s were fun cars. Rode in one once. AWD twin turbo with all wheel steering. Just too damn small for me. I tried to sit in one and at 6'1 215 pounds, I couldn't get my knee under the steering wheel with the seat all the way back.

RE: Argg
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol has a much higher octane than gasoline. I'm sure that a lower octane gasoline is mixed with the 15% ethanol though so that it stays at 87 octane for example.

RE: Argg
By sorry dog on 3/15/2011 12:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say much higher as it's around 100. MTBE was quite a bit better being at 108+.

Problem with alcohol is it's unfriendly to petroleum based products...and is probably responsible for the creation of people like Pirks.

RE: Argg
By wookie1 on 3/15/2011 2:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Ethanol's octane is 113

So quite a bit higher than gasoline.

RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 12:42:36 PM , Rating: 1
What year Camaro/Firebird/Corvette/SSR do you have? My dad's 2002 WS6 doesn't have any problems. Nor does my LS2 GTO which has a higher static compression than your LS1. Hell I ran E10 in my 10.46:1 carbed Camaro without any pinging. What brand of gas do you run? Sounds like you have other problems.

RE: Argg
By formulav8 on 3/14/2011 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have a modded 98 Z28 Ls1. B1 Cam, headers/full exhaust, ect... Its not low octane causing the pinging. Its probably the extra heat that ethanol produces.

I have already had to re-tune the computer with LS1 Edit. Yes I have the A/F ratio as lean as possible and the 15% ethenol will make things worse if i'm forced to eventually use it. With my car being an 98 is doesn't fall under the 2001 and newer compatibility list. But I will have to use what I can get even if that means the 15% stuff...

RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
So your pinging is likely because of running too lean under higher heat scenarios. Ethanol actually has a cooling effect in the combustion chamber though.

Like I said though, my dads car has the stock tune and runs fine. Wasn't many changes to the LS1 between 98 and 2002 either.

RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:31:07 PM , Rating: 3
Also make sure you set your timing right in LS1Edit.

If you're in Columbia and unsure about your tune, take your car up to Mooresville, NC to Nick Williams. He is one of the best tuners on the east coast and who I had do my tune. H/C tune runs $350 I believe.

RE: Argg
By formulav8 on 3/14/2011 5:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. I just might head up there and let a pro do it. Especially if the $350 includes a dyno tune. I should probably fix a couple small exhaust leaks first :)

RE: Argg
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 7:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah with mine he put it up on the dyno to get an overall tune. Then took it out for about 30 minutes to refine it a little more. He's done so many LS motors he's pretty much got tunes already for almost any combination.

RE: Argg
By YashBudini on 3/14/2011 6:02:52 PM , Rating: 2

You may have something wrong with your car. A friend had a similar problem with his car even after adding octane booster. The problem? The EGR recirculation was plugged up. When that was fixed the EGR cooled combustion temps and his car ran normal on regular gas again.

Not ALL cars
By Flunk on 3/14/2011 2:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
The manual for my 2010 Mazda 3 specifically says that higher than 10% ethanol voids the warranty and can corrode the fuel system. If they really did this what would I do?

RE: Not ALL cars
By maven81 on 3/14/2011 3:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, my 2010 subaru's manual specifically says to not use fuel with over 10% ethanol.

RE: Not ALL cars
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 9:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
That'll be interesting to see. I'd bet that if you have to run E15 because you can no longer find pumps with E10 or less, and you have corrosion etc, Subaru would probably not warranty it. I don't think that you would have any recourse, just have to suck it up and pay for new parts.

Also, your used vehicle values will tank, since the warranty is void and people would be worried about corrosion after the media starts to run stories about people having problems.

Don't complain, you're just doing your part to help the hard-working farmers and save the planet. Buying new fuel lines and tanks, etc, is a minimal price to pay in this pursuit. Also, you'll be creating or saving jobs in the auto replacement parts industry.

RE: Not ALL cars
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:40:38 PM , Rating: 4
What you expect the EPA to care about you? Lowly peon. We fart in your general direction. If you do not go away I shall taunt you a second time. /frenchaccent

RE: Not ALL cars
By Flunk on 3/14/2011 3:48:12 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, the government works for the people. Otherwise we rise up and revolt.

Do you spend all day posting idiotic garbage on DT?

RE: Not ALL cars
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2

I was being sarcastic.

RE: Not ALL cars
By Ringold on 3/15/2011 1:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the government works for the people. Otherwise we rise up and revolt.

If that were true, my old public economics textbook from back in college would've only been about 1/3 as thick, as about 2/3's of it dealt with what can generally be called sources of government corruption and how small groups of citizens try to warp democracy to screw the wider majority of citizens.

The older I get, the more disillusioned I get with democracy in general, though I admit it works better then other systems.. Just needs the occasional libertarian insurgency imo. :P

RE: Not ALL cars
By FITCamaro on 3/15/2011 7:22:57 AM , Rating: 4
Hence the Tea Party movement.

Remember when
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 12:45:34 PM , Rating: 4
The government didn't mandate fuel mixtures for gasoline so that only cars a decade old or newer were ok to run it?

Man I miss those days.

RE: Remember when
By Flunk on 3/14/2011 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Are you saying you're old enough to remember before they switched to unleaded gas?

RE: Remember when
By Flunk on 3/14/2011 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Or, alternately that you're so old that you remember before they forced us to switch to unleaded gas.

RE: Remember when
By rcc on 3/14/2011 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
I am, to both. Life was good, Ethyl was 29 cents a gallon.

RE: Remember when
By Shane McGlaun on 3/14/2011 2:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
I am 37 and I remember when they made that change. My parents owned a little store that sold fuel and my dad was pissed because his Vette didn't run as well on unleaded.

RE: Remember when
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I wasn't thinking of the switch from leaded to unleaded.
Not too many people though who thought that was a bad move however.

Fair enough.

RE: Remember when
By MrFord on 3/14/2011 2:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Leaded vs unleaded fuel anyone?

RE: Remember when
By Samus on 3/14/2011 10:31:47 PM , Rating: 1
Ahh, good ol' hi-test. I loved how that shit smelled and I still don't have cancer.

RE: Remember when
By FITCamaro on 3/15/2011 7:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah honestly I wouldn't care if gas still had lead in it. Just don't suck on the tail pipe or bathe in it.

But I love the smell of gasoline.

This article is pointless
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 4
RE: This article is pointless
By Shane McGlaun on 3/14/2011 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 1
The source for this story is newer than the link you posted. Which is right? I have no idea where either of them got their info so it could go either way presumably. I don't think the EPA would be working on labels if it was blocked, do you?

RE: This article is pointless
By Spuke on 3/14/2011 2:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
It IS blocked. The House voted against funding the waivers.

RE: This article is pointless
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 3:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
You post an update to the fucking article and fail to mention its not happening? If you don't know, YOU DON'T REPORT ON IT!

This just in, Godzilla is throwing a tantrum on the ocean floor causing the massive quakes in Japan. I have no facts to support my reporting, but I'm reporting it anyway. Christ this is journalism to you Shane? What is this South Park?

RE: This article is pointless
RE: This article is pointless
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2011 10:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Congress (you know those guys we elect that decide what money can be spent on) says differently.

By YashBudini on 3/14/2011 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you love watching the government bend over for the corn industry?

That would be the same group that made it illegal to import sugar cane to make methanol, a far more efficient process.

RE: More?
By spamreader1 on 3/14/2011 2:01:55 PM , Rating: 1
I think you got that backward, it's the corn industry bent over by the government. (grain production in general, this including of course soybean, wheat, sourghum, etc. etc.)

RE: More?
By Kurz on 3/14/2011 2:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
They are mutually gaining.

RE: More?
By YashBudini on 3/14/2011 6:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think you got that backward, it's the corn industry bent over by the government


I don't have much sympathy for people who more than occaisionally are paid to do nothing. And talk to microbreweries across the country, the prices for their goods have skyrocketed because farmers have switched over to corn, a more profittable crop, and are still being paid by the government to grow less profitable crops, like hops.

By Suntan on 3/14/2011 12:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
As a mechanical engineer that’s spent the last couple of years dealing with the *unforeseen effects* of “no more than” 10% ethanol use in off road motorized equipment, I’ll say that you’ll “probably” not see a problem with 15%. But for my money, I’ll choose the non-ethanol pump every time.


By Spuke on 3/14/2011 1:41:48 PM , Rating: 3
But for my money, I’ll choose the non-ethanol pump every time.
I wish I could find a non-ethanol pump but I live in the PRC and they wouldn't have that.

By YashBudini on 3/14/2011 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, +1.

What moron wrote this article???
By jfelano on 3/15/2011 10:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
Some moron wrote this article and failed to tell us what this means for those of us with cars older than 2001.

You = FAiL

By wookie1 on 3/15/2011 2:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, they stated that cars older than 2001 weren't studied. You'll probably have problems with corrosion in the fuel tank, lines, intake manifold, etc. Also, o-rings and gaskets will possibly disintigrate. Then, you can turn your car in for a nice flex-fuel Volt and show your patriotism.

By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's time to start the recall petition for Lisa Jackson. [waits for post about why this isn't possible...]

Same ruling?
By chrnochime on 3/14/2011 2:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the same ruling as the one that the republican or democrat(can't remember which one) was trying to block? I thought it had very little chance of passing. Not with or against it, as I have no idea how profound the impact is on engine longevity.

I dont beleive thats true
By saganhill on 3/14/2011 2:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
All autos built after 2001 can burn 15% ethanol? I could be wrong but I dont think thats true and you should check your manual before you use that fuel. You might do damage to your car if you burn that stuff.

15% Ethanol
By bmwguy on 3/14/2011 3:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
Is this saying that the 15% product won't be the sole product, but 10% will still exist?


By Silver2k7 on 3/14/2011 3:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
I thought this was something for getting better fuel economy.. I guess not..

By Philippine Mango on 3/14/2011 10:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
You people complaining about already having to use E10 and with E15 being too much seem to be incapable of reading your owners manual. Of all the vehicles listed in this thread, none I've seen aren't capable of running on E10 as per the owners manual. (not talking about lawn mowers) Most cars made in the last 25 years can safely run on E10.

As for this E15 stuff, I don't know where the EPA has come up with the idea that cars can run on this stuff when they weren't even designed with this stuff in mind. I understand the wideband stuff, however there are lots of cars made from 2001+ that didn't include a wideband o2 sensor and so compensating for fuel mixtures it wasn't designed with might be impossible, resulting in a poorly running vehicle or one that wears out prematurely.

By Beenthere on 3/14/2011 11:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
The last thing the U.S. needs is 15% ethanol in our gasoline. Ethanol has been a scam of consumers since day one. In no way does it lower our dependence on imported crude and it never will. It's just a means to financially enrich a few companies at the expense of consumers.

This is more government cronyism and it will cost consumers not just at the pumps but in federal subsidies and increased auto repairs. As long as consumers allow this fraud to continue, we will all pay dearly.

By tastyratz on 3/15/2011 12:40:31 AM , Rating: 2

Having more ethanol in the gas makes tuning cars more difficult and more inconsistent. The ethanol level in the gasonline is not always held at a full 15%. It can be all over the place from one fillup to the next. If your car is tuned with a wideband while running 15% ethanol, and then you run fuel with no ethanol in it, you’re air to fuel ratio can shift over a point richer. This is huge from a tuning standpoint in terms of power and efficiency. The OEMs have realized this and most 2011+ Fords including the Mustang GT and Shelby GT500 use widebands from the factory. These vehicles are closed loop at WOT (wide open throttle) and are constantly correcting air/fuel ratio at all operating conditions. The PCM keeps the actual A/F and the commanded A/F the same, this is great for performance, efficiency, reliability, and safety.

This is incorrect. o2 sensors measure in lambda, and lambda never changes and can be measured on prettymuch any fuel. Your *target* air fuel ratio changes based on the recommended lambda for that fuel type though. an o2 can not tell what fuel you are running or if it is optimal. It will not know or adjust for ethanol!
Wide band o2's have become fairly defacto on factory obd2 cars of this generation because of the accuracy and control of emissions/gas mileage/etc for oem's.

Fuel System
By btc909 on 3/15/2011 2:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Only turbocharged & supercharged vehicles will have fuel system issues, BS any engine will. You better have a fuel system treatment ready to go several times a year at 15% ethanol. I use the Chevron product that is sold as a 6 pack at Costco.

By jharper12 on 3/15/2011 6:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 1996 Saturn SL with over 200k miles on it. It's averaged between 32 and 33 MPG over its lifetime. In terms of materials required to produce per miles driven and fuel economy, this is car has been better for the environment than probably 98% of cars produced in 1996. Still, the EPA wants me to put this thing out to pasture... literally, the issue being it can't process corn.

What kind of a message is this sending to the world? Hello world! We realize many of you are starving, and we wish you well, but our cars need corn too. I hope it isn't a substantial part of your diet, because prices are about to go up... again. That's just supply and demand though, we hope you understand.

What a bunch of douchebags! My car runs just fine, looks new, has working air and cruise control, and still gets great mileage. I pay less than $500 a year for insurance. Why now? Why, right as we're finally recovering from one of the most substantial recessions in history, do you want to force people to spend more than is necessary on their cars? I'm doing everything in my power to live frugally and responsibly, something the government will never understand. Those responsible for this decision, please go fornicate yourself with an iron rod.

Ethanol - alright with me
By Shinobisan on 3/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Ethanol - alright with me
By randomly on 3/15/2011 3:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
1) yes things have improved over the years, but not by that much. It's still scarcely better than break even on energy return.

2)We can't even remotely do both. It would take 6 times the total agricultural land in the US to grow enough corn to make the fuel used by light vehicles alone. You need to check the scales of our fuel consumption.

We do not have a surplus of corn, if we did then why are corn prices at an ALL TIME HISTORICAL HIGH of almost $7 a bushel? These high prices trickle down through all food prices especially meat since corn is used for feed.

3) No there is no magical advantage of burning Ethanol in an 'Ethanol' engine. The thermodynamic efficiency of the engines is little changed when running on gas or ethanol. The primary problem is gallon for gallon there is less energy in Ethanol than there is in gas. No engine is going to extract energy that isn't in the fuel in the first place. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gas which allows you to run a higher compression ratio which gives a small efficiency advantage. However the ethanol gas mixes are still blended to 87-93 octane rating like regular gas and you again have no advantage.

Ethanol has a LOT less energy than gas. It takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in 1 gal of gas. You don't make that up with marginal compression ratio increases.

I'm sorry but your information is outdated and incomplete.

Alternative thought
By YashBudini on 3/15/2011 8:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
Would corn be put to better/more efficient use in one of those combo wood pellet/dry corn stoves?

No difference in petroleum usage?
By TimboG on 3/16/2011 12:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
If they add 15% ethanol to the petroleum based fuel and the end result is, let’s say, a 15% reduction in fuel mileage (MPG), wouldn’t we still use the same amount of the petroleum based fuel to go the same distance?
From what I have personally experienced the inclusion of 10% ethanol has dropped the MPG of BOTH of my current vehicles at least 10%. Vehicle types: 2003 Chrysler Sebring (flex fuel) and a 2010 Jeep Compass.
That is the reason I used the 15% reduction in the first paragraph as an example.
So, where is the “Saving our country from foreign oil” come into play when we still use the same amount of petroleum to do the same jobs due to less efficiency?

Too add insult to injury. We are now paying MORE for the 10% fuel than we did for “real” gas.
So now I pay more to travel a shorter distance all the while using the same amount of petroleum. The oil company makes a larger profit margin just by inflating the cost of handeling the ethanol.

Life sucks,,,,, Then you die.

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki