backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by SoCalBoomer.. on Jul 11 at 2:56 PM


Ford, Toyota, and other automakers say that using E15 can void warranties and lead to early engine death.  (Source: Team BHP)

GM is the only major U.S. automaker to support the plan.  (Source: AP Photo)
New proposal would allow up to 15 percent ethanol in fuel

Corn ethanol is dead, long live corn ethanol.  That's the message that the United States Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson seemingly sent when her agency proposed allowing blends of up to 15 percent ethanol at the pump.  The proposal comes just weeks after Congress repealed the $5.6B USD federal subsidy for corn ethanol.

I. E15: Killing Your Autos, One Engine at a Time

Automakers are outraged at the proposal.  Ford Motor Company (F) and Toyota Motor Company (TYO:7203) led the coalition of the unwilling.

In letters to House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming's ranking Republican member, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (Milwaukee - Wisc.), the automakers rip the plan, which they say will likely void vehicle owners' warranties.

While the EPA promises to use a special orange and black label at the pumps where E15 fuel is being vended, officials at Ford and Toyota fear that won't be enough warning for customers.  They point out that most gasoline engines aren’t designed to use ethanol, which can cause excessive engine wear and engine failure.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally has criticized the U.S. government's financial support of corn ethanol.  Mr. Mulally indicates that he would like to see the government instead exclusively support electrified vehicles.

Chrysler LLC also opposed the plan to allow E15 at the pump.  Writes Jody Trapasso, Chrysler external affairs SVP, "While Chrysler has been a strong advocate of renewable fuels, we have concerns about the potential harmful effects of E15 in engines and fuel systems that were not designed for use of that fuel."

In response to the letters, Rep. Sensenbrenner has fired off a letter of his own to Ms. Jackson at the EPA, warning about the engine damage and telling her, "In difficult economic times, consumers need to get more miles from a gallon of gas and extend the lives of their cars."

II. EPA: Problem? What Problem?

The EPA defended the proposal claiming that research by the U.S. Department of Energy showed E15 to be safe to run on engines produced after 2001.  They claim the DOE extensively verified "any increase would not have an adverse impact."

The statement continues, "The administration will continue to take steps, guided by science and the law, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and increase our use of home-grown fuels."

Clearly the two sides don't see eye to eye here.  The automakers, who actually engineered the cars, say E15 will destroy engines of vehicles produced since 2001.  But the EPA and DOE claim to have secret insight that the automakers don't, arguing the vehicles will be just fine.

Besides Ford, Toyota, and Chrysler, the other dissenting parties included Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (ETR:BMW); Daimler AG (ETR:DAI)’s Mercedes Benz; Honda Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7267); Hyundai Motor Comp. (SEO:005380); Kia Motors Corp. (SEO:000270); Mazda Motor Corp. (TYO:7261); Nissan Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7201); Volkswagen AG (ETR:VOW); and Volvo Car Corp., owned by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Comp.

Noticeably absent among the protesters is General Motors Comp. (GM).  GM was the chief supporter of ethanol fuel vehicles.  Most of its lineup consists of FlexFuel vehicles, which can run on ethanol or gasoline.

The EPA may bend to the will of the industry -- after all, just weeks ago it cut the mandatory amount of ethanol in fuel blends to the lowest level in three years.

 



Comments     Threshold


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

How about we...
By Motoman on 7/6/2011 10:01:08 AM , Rating: 4
...stop being morons and making fuel from our food in the first place?

Sure, too much ethanol will harm lots of motors...but the reasons to stop that begin waaaay earlier in the total equation.




RE: How about we...
By AMDftw on 7/6/2011 10:16:36 AM , Rating: 1
If I'm not mistaking, don't you also have to change your oil more often? If so, why in the hell would I want to do that for?


RE: How about we...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: How about we...
By tastyratz on 7/6/2011 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
No,
The reason they are pushing ethanol is the corn coalitions are lobbying harder than the oil companies.

This is not for national independance, drilling in our own MASSIVE reserves would do that.

This is not for middle eastern dependence, we rely mostly on CANADA and very little on the middle east.

Ethanol requires a different a/f ratio and engines pushed to the edge can NOT handle this without a re-tune.

I don't really give a rats ass if the epa seems to be delusional in thinking engines after 2001 can handle this, stoichometric target has changed so this ethanol crap could leave us a full point off. This is not about ethanol and its corrosiveness to aluminum and older rubbers. This is about engines blowing and screwing owners of older vehicles.

I read a study in 09 (economy was better) about the AVERAGE registered vehicle age increasing from 9.2 to 9.4 years old. That means that half of those numbers exceed that and most likely the magical 2001 safe point the epa claims.

So tell me epa, what about the near half of cars on the road this is NOT safe for?

This is CRAP


RE: How about we...
By BSMonitor on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: How about we...
By kattanna on 7/6/2011 11:34:31 AM , Rating: 5
which parts?

we do in fact get more oil from canada alone then from saudia arabia and iraq combined

heck we get almost as much oil from mexico as we do from saudi arabia

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_p...


RE: How about we...
By twhittet on 7/6/2011 4:25:04 PM , Rating: 3
What's your point? Last time I checked, Mexico and Canada didn't have to sell exclusively to us. Hell - I assume a US company could export if they chose to. As part of a global market, ANY changes in supply/demand/prices of oil can negatively impact our own prices at the pump. We are more dependent on middle-eastern oil than the % numbers would imply.


RE: How about we...
By gamerk2 on 7/11/2011 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
To be more correct, the price of oil is more a result of speculators then actual Supply/Demand problems.

I also note: It doesn't make any economic sense to use our remaining oil reserves while the price of oil is still "cheap". And I say that fully expecting peak oil to occur within the next decade. I say, save our reserves for when everyone else runs out of oil, then sell off at inflated prices. Could theoretically solve our deficit problem in one quick stroke...


RE: How about we...
By hanmen on 7/8/2011 2:07:16 AM , Rating: 1
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best

sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: How about we...
By Samus on 7/6/2011 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 5
The majority of corn used to make ethanol would be wasted anyway. We have a lot of corn. More than we know what to do with.

The real solution is to stop growing so much damn corn and grow something else. Or stop subsidizing farmers to grow a crop people don't want.


RE: How about we...
By NellyFromMA on 7/6/2011 11:57:40 AM , Rating: 4
Hush! The world needs MORE CORN!


RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 12:24:13 PM , Rating: 5
Corn has like the lowest nutritional value of any grain going. And clearly, we don't need to pay people to grow more.


RE: How about we...
By AssBall on 7/6/2011 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 4
Cattle ranchers and livestock owners hate this ethanol crap too, because it rips into their profits (they have to grow corn for ethanol, a poor profit, instead of feed) and drives up the cost of beef for consumers.


RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 3
Microbreweries hate it as well. Consumers are getting doubley screwed. First, some farmers got paid to grow marginal crops like hops. Then they switched to corn, and they got to keep the original "marginal crop" subsidy.

Brings a whole new definition to the term "corn hole", doesn't it?


RE: How about we...
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:56:56 AM , Rating: 1
You would know, cornholer.


RE: How about we...
By SoCalBoomer on 7/11/2011 2:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Which microbreweries?

Pretty much all of the microbreweries don't use corn as it's not really a "beer" grain. Traditionally, beer is brewed with malted barley and wheat - not corn. Corn was only introduced into our big American beer companies after the depression because it was cheap compared to barley and even wheat.

I don't buy beer from breweries that brew with corn, so if you have a list, that would be greatly appreciated! :D


RE: How about we...
By tastyratz on 7/6/2011 12:56:21 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think so, because demand dictates the market. We have a lot of corn waste that could be used for cellulosic ethanol but that isn't the case here. We have feed grade corn that is now not going to the animals but to ethanol production. The farmers were not growing more corn than consumed it's bad business. We are CREATING the massive corn demand with this b.s. ethanol push.

R.I.P. mbte, you are missed!


RE: How about we...
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 1:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've heard that there are dozens of countries with mass starvation. Maybe we should send it there?

How about we stop sending them money, and instead send them food? Wouldn't you feel better if you gave a bum a sandwich instead of a couple of dollars which he/she later uses to buy drugs/alcohol?


RE: How about we...
By torpor on 7/6/2011 1:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Something you should understand...this isn't the corn you buy in the store...sweet corn is a tiny percentage of what's grown. And all you get is 1 ear per stalk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_corn

There are way, way more efficient uses of the land if you're looking to feed humanity.


RE: How about we...
By Zoomer on 7/6/2011 10:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
If field corn is not grown, other crops will be grown in its place. Wheat, soybeans, rice, sweet corn, tc.


RE: How about we...
By danjw1 on 7/6/2011 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 1
22%* of our imported oil comes from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Both are dictatorial regimes, with little to no concern about human rights. Sending money to either of these countries is not in our best interest. Both economically and for national security this is an issue. I, and many other veterans, understand this. Currently, I drive a hybrid. Unfortunately, an EV is out of the question for me, since, I wouldn't have anyway to charging it. I am hoping to change that in the next year.

* http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dep...

Canada (25%)
Saudi Arabia (12%)
Nigeria (11%)
Venezuela (10%)
Mexico (9%)


RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
22%* of our imported oil comes from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Both are dictatorial regimes,

And China still has areas where they force government mandated abortion. Here not only do we not see any pro-lifers screaming or protesting we still give them most-favored-nation status. Try explaining that situation.


RE: How about we...
By sedoo on 7/6/2011 2:00:13 PM , Rating: 1
As a liberal you would think you would love that, don't all pro abortionists like you do ; ).

Actually Pro lifers do hate it, it's just morons like you won't acknowledge that.


RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: How about we...
By Iaiken on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: How about we...
By Hyperion1400 on 7/6/2011 8:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the EPA would do if I sent them an invoice for the 3 sets of spark plugs I've burned through over the past 45k miles, the fuel injectors I need to replace, and the piston rings I need to have swapped on my GA16DE because of their mandate?


RE: How about we...
By NellyFromMA on 7/6/2011 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's more like the industry consensus is really that there is no lucrative advantage to investing in ethanol capable engines; short or long term. I actually wouldn't be surprised if somehow even GMs engines fail at faster rates as a result.

You are right, the point of this is to remove our dependence on foreign oil. This just isn't a wise way of even inching our way there...


RE: How about we...
By danjw1 on 7/6/2011 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
GM has gone with mostly ethanol capable engines because they sell a lot of cars internationally. Countries like Brazil, who rely heavily on ethanol, are a big market for them.


RE: How about we...
By sigmatau on 7/6/2011 1:33:19 PM , Rating: 1
Um not really. GM is towards the bottom of fuel economy compared to others. By heavily using the ethanol loophole they were able to increase their fleet's fuel economy greatly.

The ethanol loophole should be closing soon if not already. It allowed a car manufacturer to incorrectly state the fuel economy of a vehicle as a sum of the fuel economy on gas and ethonal. So if a truck got 15mpg on gas or 12mpg on E85, the manufacturer could state that the truck got 27mpg.

The fact that it costs less than $150 per vehicle to make the E85 compatible, it was a way for GM to NOT invest in hybrids or other fuel saving technologies.



RE: How about we...
By Zoomer on 7/6/2011 10:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
It also resulted in these vehicles having a much worse mileage than it would otherwise have been if it were not compatible with E85.

Bravo.


RE: How about we...
By hanmen on 7/8/2011 2:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best

sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


RE: How about we...
By Manch on 7/6/2011 10:21:40 AM , Rating: 1
One reason I can think of is, if they stop using up all the corn for ethanol, maybe itll be easier to find yellow corn chips again! They taste better than the white corn. no? or it could possibly be a CONSPIRACY to aid GM! or Plan to help the economy?

Since ethanol is no longer subsidized, the gas will go up.

Now, ad 5% more, which will increase the prices/provide more tax revenue.

Destroying our engines, force us to repair/upgrade or replace our old gas guzzling earth destroying evil machines there by creating jobs.

GM vehicles are flexfuel, pushing would be buyers towards them.

Their stock goes up, the government sells it to a foreign entity like they did with Chrysler and uses the money to pay for more wealth redistribution policies!

Yeah, second thought, just typical activist bullsh!t


RE: How about we...
By dgingeri on 7/6/2011 10:52:22 AM , Rating: 4
Besides, that ethanol has way better use aged in barrels and sold a whiskey. :)


RE: How about we...
By Nutzo on 7/6/2011 11:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
Just another attempt by this administration to boost car sales and support the union auto workers. Guess the cash for clunkers didn't get enough of the old cars off the road.

And as usually, the poor and middle class will suffer, due to a lack of reliable & cheap used cars.


RE: How about we...
By kattanna on 7/6/2011 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 4
yeah i find it odd that they are pushing for higher MPG ratings on new cars, while at the same time mandating using of a fuel that is well known to give less MPG


RE: How about we...
By Danger D on 7/8/2011 4:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
They push for higher MPG ratings because they want us to use less gasoline, not because they give a hoot about how far a car can go on any liquid fuel. They'll accept a lower MPG with a different fuel.


RE: How about we...
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 12:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and support the union auto workers.

So according to you this won't boost non-union auto workers. That was highly objective.

Not really.


RE: How about we...
By Concillian on 7/6/2011 2:15:35 PM , Rating: 1
Agree, we need to invest in the less resource intensive ethanol production methods.

Newer cars are cool with higher ethanol. I switched to E85 over a year ago in my 2002. Love the ethanol, it's like getting race gas for the price of premium. Hate the fact it's tied to corn, but it's not like I'm going to use 91 octane when I can get fuel that allows me to tune in an extra 50 HP for the same price (lower $ per gallon, but worse MPG, total cost is about the same.)


To be clear
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 10:07:16 AM , Rating: 3
It does not kill the engine. It corrodes the seals inside the engine causing oil leaks or worse and potentially the fuel system of the vehicle. And a leaking fuel line isn't exactly a good thing....

But hey, why should the EPA give a shit.




RE: To be clear
By Gzus666 on 7/6/2011 10:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, the new seals handle ethanol a lot better to the point where they claim it doesn't bother them. The big issue is ethanol washes oil off the rings and runs into the crankcase which causes premature cylinder bore wear as well as premature oil failure.


RE: To be clear
By Gzus666 on 7/6/2011 10:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
Strange wording, should have said washes the oil off the cylinder walls where the rings ride, makes it sound like all the oil is on the rings.


RE: To be clear
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 11:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
We're not talking about new cars. We're talking about older cars.


RE: To be clear
By Gzus666 on 7/6/2011 2:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
We are talking a 10 year span here, I think we can safely say the majority of cars won't be more than 10 years old.

Either way, ethanol is a horrible idea.


RE: To be clear
By Nfarce on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: To be clear
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 8:54:14 PM , Rating: 3
My parents have a 94 Honda Accord. Why should they replace it because some hack bureaucrat essentially says so. And in 10 years I plan to either still have my GTO which will then be 16 years old or have a car that will be 50 years old.


RE: To be clear
By Iaiken on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: To be clear
By tng on 7/6/2011 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Americans could just as easily do the same, but they are too uninformed to get upset about this or too lazy....
And you would be the expert why? Have I met you before and you know my work ethic or those of my neighbors?

Again you come from the world that I see everyday, a large metro area. It shows that you really think that riding the bus or the train is something that everybody could do instead of driving. Not the case in the US.

I find most of your posts informing, but on this one you hit the bottom. One of the most moronic posts ever.


RE: To be clear
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 2:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again you come from the world that I see everyday, a large metro area.


It depends largely on the city, Toronto is easy, and in most cases, it is faster to drive just to the GO train or Subway, park for free and then boot around town that way. Same when I am in NYC. Houston and LA are interesting in that they have public transit, but it is so horrible that even a miserable drive through insane traffic is better than riding the bus.

Maybe it's not possible for most people, but if nobody even bothers to try, then it's certainly not.


RE: To be clear
By tng on 7/6/2011 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Maybe it's not possible for most people, but if nobody even bothers to try, then it's certainly not.
I understand, but unlike the North East US, there are vast areas in the West where things have spread out to the point that it becomes very hard to bike to work or even have mass public transport.

The problem as I see it is that as you get closer to the center of a urban area where the jobs are, the prices for housing rises to the point where driving is cheaper than housing.


RE: To be clear
By Nfarce on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: To be clear
By Ghost42 on 7/6/2011 12:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about your car, but mine doesn't have any fuel in the "valve train" area. Also 99% of valve train components on the road today are pretty much all steel as the only aluminum valve train components are rocker arms, which are usually aftermarket items that people have had installed.

Ethanol's main issues are that it's hygroscopic, and the more ethanol in the fuel the more water there is as well. That leads to galvanic corrosion and causes issue with not just aluminum but steel as well. Also it doesn't play nice with plastics and rubbers used as lines or seals in older vehicles not designed for it creating the potential for leaks.

Never mind the fact that it's 1.5x less efficient, and when looking at higher concentrations such as E85, does not ignite well if it is -1c(30f) or lower.


RE: To be clear
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 12:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also it doesn't play nice with plastics and rubbers used as lines or seals in older vehicles not designed for it creating the potential for leaks.

Which is why it can end up in places it doesn't belong, like valve trains and crankcases.


RE: To be clear
By Maroon on 7/6/2011 2:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
My car has an aluminum head from the factory. I'm pretty sure the ethanol will come in contact with it. You know, that thing called a combustion chamber.


RE: To be clear
By Ghost42 on 7/7/2011 1:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
That's not the "valve train" though.


RE: To be clear
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 2:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
My car has an all aluminum head and the only part of my valve train that is not aluminum is the cam shaft itself and the valve springs.

I've seen a head from another Cooper S that was run on ethanol blend for about 90,000km before they sent it back to BMW to be examined. It had penetrated virtually everywhere and had even gotten into the oil via the crank case and then into the superchargers oil supply. The valves themselves also had wicked scaring on them from the corrosion. It was not pretty... :(

I don't know about your car, but I plan to keep this one even after I buy my next daily driver...


RE: To be clear
By Shinobisan on 7/6/2011 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be quoting real facts... but they just don't hold up to reality. 15% Ethanol will destroy an aluminum engine in 17,000 km? (and why are we talking km? this is an american law isn't it?) 17,000 km = 10,563 miles.
And they destroy fuel pumps at a rate of 2/year?
Ask yourself... have I - or do I know ANYONE - that has replaced a fuel pump in the last year? Let alone 2 pump EACH year?
Every drop of gasoline in Minnesota contains 10% Ethanol. Do the motorists in Minnesota buy 50 times more fuel pumps? Nope.
Why are you trying to scare us? With all these dumb "facts"? Really. I'm not buying it.


RE: To be clear
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 3
You seem to be mixing up the facts I am quoting for a specific test by BMW for a specific fuel pump and trying to expand it to ALL fuel pumps. Don't be retarded.

BMW research showed that the High Pressure Fuel pump used in in the N54 would reliably fail after an average 17,000 km under the use of 91 octane that was 15% ethanol. As such, they responded by offering a warranty extension to 190,000km in the US/Canada. They have since recalled the old pumps to replace them with a new one that was redesigned in early 2011.

quote:
and why are we talking km? this is an american law isn't it


Because the findings by BMW were in German, they use KM and I was too lazy to bother converting them. If you can't do mile-km or vice versa in your head by now then you're a bloody idiot.

quote:
Why are you trying to scare us?


I am not trying to scare you, I am demonstrating that it is an established fact that ethanol blended fuel does significant damage to cars that were not designed for it.


RE: To be clear
By Reclaimer77 on 7/6/2011 1:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Americans could just as easily do the same, but they are too uninformed to get upset about this or too lazy to do anything about it even if they are. Indolent masses are the best kind to scam!


The arrogant prick from Canada strikes again. Might wanna look at a map and compare Germany to the U.S. Notice something? We're way too big to rely on bikes, trains, or buses.

Couldn't you have made a point without calling us all lazy and uninformed? You aren't even close to being accurate, but you probably don't care. Just one more excuse to be snide and condescending.


RE: To be clear
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The arrogant prick from Canada strikes again.


Love you too claimy. :P


RE: To be clear
By croc on 7/7/2011 1:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
"We're way too big to rely on bikes, trains, or buses."

Type II diabetes IS a valid concern in the US of (fat)A(sses)...


2001+?
By transamdude95 on 7/6/2011 10:22:10 AM , Rating: 4
So, EPA states vehicles from 2001 and up are ok to use ethanol with no adverse effects, whereas, the automakers claim ethanol will harm these vehicles' engines, etc? Unless the government will be reimbursing the public for their losses if ethanol does cause harmful effects, I would have to side with the automakers on this one. Almost feels like one side is being paid off by the farm companies and the other side is being paid off by the oil companies...

I haven't done my research on ethanol, but what about cars built prior to 2001? There are more of them on the road than 2001+ vehicles. Corn ethanol has "bad idea" stamped all over it.




RE: 2001+?
By tng on 7/6/2011 11:39:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Almost feels like one side is being paid off by the farm companies and the other side is being paid off by the oil companies...
Well, just me, but I would side with the car companies on this one for a couple of reasons.

1. No automobile manufacturer wants their product's performance and reliability compromised in the real world. It may be ethanol's fault that their vehicles break down more, but for many potential buyers that wont matter at all.

2. While you may think that "The Big Three" may be in the pocket of "Big Oil", who would you trust more, a basically faceless government agency with hundreds of thousand of bureaucrats or a corporation that still has to respond to the public? I hate to use the word, but while you can boycott a Ford or GM product, how do you do the same to the EPA? How do you hold the EPA accountable for mistakes?


RE: 2001+?
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While you may think that "The Big Three" may be in the pocket of "Big Oil",

Ethanol has to do with the corn lobby.

quote:
It may be ethanol's fault that their vehicles break down more, but for many potential buyers that wont matter at all.

Libertarians call this mob rule. Have you've just made owners of older cars second class citizens?

quote:
How do you hold the EPA accountable for mistakes?

How do you hold the corn lobby accountable for theirs? I doubt any of these decisions came about without their influence.


RE: 2001+?
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 2:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you've just made owners of older cars second class citizens?


What's wrong with the government invalidating your past $30,000 investment?


RE: 2001+?
By tng on 7/6/2011 3:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethanol has to do with the corn lobby.
Well my thinking on that was that automakers would be beholding to big oil, congress would be beholding to the corn lobby and the farm lobby. I would trust automakers before the US Congress.....

quote:
Libertarians call this mob rule. Have you've just made owners of older cars second class citizens?
Not really, since I believe in running a car until it dies. It really has less to do with mob rules and more to do with what sells. If the public perception of a automaker is bad because of problems caused by ethanol, most of the public will not make the distinction. How does a automaker fight that? They lobby against it in congress.

Yes I am sure that there is plenty of influence at the EPA by the corn and farm lobbies, and that is pushing this even though congress finally saw the light. I don't think that you can punish the lobbies, they are doing what they do legally (hopefully).

It is Agencies like the EPA that are not held accountable for the crap that they pass. We can hold the fire to the congress for the laws that they pass and they will sometimes repeal in response. An agency that passes a regulation has no such effective feedback, and does not report to the public.


RE: 2001+?
By Lazarus Dark on 7/8/2011 11:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
My car manual for a 2009 car specifically states more than 10 percent ethenol will damage the engine and void the warranty (lifetime drivetrain warranty with Chrysler). If I can't find E10 or less, I will have to start ordering 55 gallon drums of fuel delivered to my house (though, to be honest I was already considering doing this)

However, you can't expect the average person to even pay attention to this. To them, gas is gas. You'll never get most to understand the difference and millions of families middle and lower class will have broken vehicles putting them in dire straits in an already tough economy. And the worst part is they won't even realize it was the government that destroyed their engine, so they wont even know to complain about it.


Um...GM....yeah.
By torpor on 7/6/2011 10:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
GM abstains for two reasons, only one was noted.

1: The bulk of the GM fleet does "flex fuel". Now, you can sometimes find E85 in an area bound by the Mississippi River, the Mason/Dixon line, and the Appalachian mountains. Outside of that, it barely exists. So, since the bulk of the country doesn't have E85, it's not a legitimate fuel source to base your fleet on. The only reason they did this is the CAFE rating bonus for their fleet.

2: GM is the house car maker. The Obama administration is the majority shareholder, and has handpicked the current CEO. They couldn't fight this if they wanted to - the Big Boss won't let 'em.

I wonder how long it is until GM starts making Trabants....




RE: Um...GM....yeah.
By swaaye on 7/6/2011 12:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's pretty easy to find E85 in the midwest. I know of at least one station here. I don't really watch for it specifically though.


RE: Um...GM....yeah.
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
And what kind of mileage do they get when they use E85?

Sure, have it as an option, just don't force it down people's throats. Even in 1975 when unleaded was introduced leaded gas was still available for older cars for quite a while, even though older cars ran on unleaded, with long term consequences.

(This is not a pro-lead post, don't read into what's not there.)


RE: Um...GM....yeah.
By torpor on 7/6/2011 3:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Read my post again, but this time with a map handy.

Geography fail.


RE: Um...GM....yeah.
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 6:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
My response did consider your location, since we don't have E85 I was asking you what kind of mileage do you get with it?

Now tell me more about failure.


Dissolve EPA!
By carniver on 7/6/2011 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 4
They're not a realistic organization. They would grant a gasoline powered alarm clock as Energy Star certified, and they would force the millions of pre-2001 cars out of service. In the end it costs us trillions in service/buying new cars, wasting incalculable amount of energy in the process.

Give us back our ethanol free gasoline!!




Hint: The U.S. is NOT dependent on foreign oil
By Beenthere on 7/6/2011 12:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
It has been documented that the U.S. has all the oil it needs for the next 100 years or more. We are not dependent on foreign oil. Oil is a commodity. Retail prices are simply what the traffic will bear and have no resemblence to cost or availability. The oil company record profits prove this. There is no shortage of gasoline. You can buy all that you want for $5/gal.

As far as ethanol is concerned it was always a lie designed to dupe consumers and enrich a select few in the cornbelt. Ethanol use is not based on science or logic. It's 100% scam as more alcohol is required meaning lower mpg and high costs to consumers. Ethanol also increases engine wear and damages components - that consumer's pay for once the vehicle is out of warranty. Ethanol can even make engines run poorly and can cause vapor lock in hot environments.

It's time U.S. citizens take back their country and tell the clowns in DC to get it right or lose their jobs.




By Makaveli on 7/6/2011 1:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ya right most americans are too busy watching NFL and Baseball and the next episode of american Idol to care about gas prices and what the government is doing to their country.

The US government has been asleep at the wheel way before Obama showed up.


Engine Failure
By btc909 on 7/6/2011 1:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
If you are in a E15 area don't buy a car with a direct ejection engine. Go to Costco if you have one around you & load up on a case of those Chevron fuel system cleaners. Fill right before you fill up on gas & corn soup. When the performance of your vehicle gets really sluggish it's time to get your throttle body flushed. Also known as a fuel system cleaning. Sometimes upwards to $150. Your SOL on any seals in your engine that are rotted away by Ethanol. Oh & exect poorer fuel ecomony as well with no reduction in the price per gallon at the pump. Avoid the cheap gas stations, E15 Ethanol + dirty fuel is a really bad combination.




RE: Engine Failure
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 9:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
Man I haven't heard of those direct ejection engines...


Good for them
By Fracture on 7/6/2011 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, finally a case where the big corporations are right.

Forcing ethanol on the public is huge waste of taxpayer money and resources as well as inefficient.

Any subsidy money allocated to the production of ethanol ultimately increases the price of the underlying commodity. If you haven't seen the change in prices of commodities over the last year look it up (corn is up to $277.85/metric ton from 152.87/ton a year ago). This isn't helping.




What to gain from this ? :|
By izmanq on 7/6/2011 11:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
15% ethanol, what to gain from this? 15% cut in oil consumption ? :| is it worth all the trouble to convert to this fuel. I heard i could drive corn price up, also is this ethanol is cheaper than oil ?




Memories are made of this...
By croc on 7/7/2011 2:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like just last century (mid eighties...) the same type of crap was being said of un-leaded fuel... Did all the car makers scream 'the end of the world'? Did all the refiner's scream that they couldn't make a fuel that worked without lead? Did all the car makers scream that they couldn't maintain existing fuel standards, even if they could make an engine that did not blow up? Pre-mature aging of oil rings, seals, and especially valve train components, un-leaded fuel would kill American car manufacturing, destroy American refiners... Blah, blah...

Did any engines blow up? (Outside of Garlits, that is...) Did the world come to an end?

The REAL debate here should be (and only should be) what feedstock to use for the ethanol. I am not enough of an agronomist to even to begin to weigh in on that subject, and if any one here is a qualified agronomist I for one would be interested in their opinions.




Dear lord...
By quiksilvr on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
Ethanol and Engines
By Shinobisan on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: Ethanol and Engines
By Kurz on 7/6/2011 11:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the fact that Ethanol is highly corrosive and likes to absorb water have nothing to do with it?


RE: Ethanol and Engines
By Shinobisan on 7/6/2011 2:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Um... are we talking about the same thing?
Ethanol is decidedly NOT corrosive.
Ever had a beer? Wine? Brandy? That's Ethanol.
Did your stomach dissolve into a gelatinous mass?
no? really? hrmmm...
And the ability of Ethanol to absorb a little water is a great thing. I bought gas once that had a little water in it. My engine ran terrible. Then I stopped and put in a little bottle of engine treatment (Ethanol), and the problem went away.


RE: Ethanol and Engines
By Noya on 7/6/2011 5:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then I stopped and put in a little bottle of engine treatment (Ethanol), and the problem went away.


It's because you boosted the octane. Try that long term...


RE: Ethanol and Engines
By spread on 7/6/2011 6:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever had a beer? Wine? Brandy? That's Ethanol. Did your stomach dissolve into a gelatinous mass?


Did you ever have Hydrochloric Acid in your stomach? Did your stomach dissolve into a gelatinous mass? No?

That's because your body produces one of the most corrosive acids to digest food. Gastric acid contains Hydrochorlic Acid and has a pH of 1 or 2 depending on what you have had to eat and how diluted it is.

Thanks for playing.


RE: Ethanol and Engines
By AssBall on 7/6/2011 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 1
Ever burn ethanol? It makes water and vinegar. Great stuff to put in your metal cylinders, right?

Learn some chemistry before you hurt yourself playing armchair expert.


RE: Ethanol and Engines
By kraeper on 7/6/2011 12:30:46 PM , Rating: 3
Going from 10% to 15% is a 50% increase, not a 5% increase.

Try harder.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki