Has anyone checked to see if our Spedo's are measuring correctly? I know on our 04 Santa Fe it was +3.5% from actual. I know that reading an additional 3.5 miles per hundred isnt much but it might be a contributing factor.

 

Hi Guys.

First of all I want to say I've enjoyed my time here and don't want to jepardize my position here. I have a lot of respect for you Gary, but I think you've got "blinders" on. I hate to criticize, but feel you and others just aren't familiar with ethanol as a fuel and base what you know from misinformation.

Why do many metro areas like Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN mandate 10% ethanol? For smog reduction. Ethanol helps the fuel burn better. Higher concentrations burn even cleaner. Another reason is it helps support the farm community, which helps agricultural states like the Midwest.

10% ethanol is the "ugly baby" of the bunch. 0% burns well, but adding ethanol increases the octane so your car pings less. Ethanol is also priced less and give big oil some competition, lowering your prices. (Here's a little secret: Oil companies HATE ethanol. Most major chains don't want E85 (85% ethanol) on their property. Many force it to be on a separate island without a canopy. The only thing they do like about ethanol is pocketing a generous blender's credit for mixing a little ethanol with their fuel.) Have you priced out gas without ethanol? When available, it's priced at least 10 cents higher than 10% ethanol. That's why I say you need to take the cost per mile into account when you bash ethanol.

E85 (85% ethanol) is the fuel of choice for owners of older, high compression street cars since it's usually priced cheaper than regular gas (and much cheaper than premium) and it's easy to convert these older vehicles to run on E85, giving them more power with a much cheaper fuel source.

20-30% is the sweet spot for many stock vehicles and for many vehicles gives equivalent mileage to plain gas. And when you factor in miles-per-dollar, is usually even more cost effective than regular gasoline.

All vehicles since the 70's have parts that are resistant to ethanol. Most of the horror stories about the corrosiveness of ethanol are actually for methanol, which is rarely used as an automotive fuel. Most competitive racers recognize the advantages and are using or converting to 85% to 95+% ethanol.

Ethanol will give you less miles per tank, but that just means you need to fill more often, not that it costs you more to use.

Regarding smog, pollution and the clean burning characteristics, imagine running your vehicle in your garage. We've all done it. You know how nasty that smells and can only imagine how bad it is to breath in that stuff. There's nothing like the smell of exhaust from a car fueled with E85. You smell a little alcohol, like your breath probably smells after you've had a few drinks. After the vehicle warmed up and isn't running so rich, you can hardly smell it at all.

The users of stock vehicles converted to E85 (which usually involves larger injectors or a box that installs between the injectors and ecu) have racked up a lot of miles with usually no more than a plugged gas filter. Usually the plugged filter comes from a high mileage vehicle that was abruptly exposed to straight E85. When the higher concentration of ethanol is slowly increased, the fuel deposits from years of gasoline, slowly dissolve in the fuel and you have no problems.

Is ethanol from corn a good thing? In my mind and many others, no. It comes from field corn (which is no good to eat) and the byproducts of ethanol still can be used for cattle feed, the same as the source. Only the sugars are removed to make ethanol. Eventually other sources like algae, switch grass, cellulose (like yard clippings and lumber waste), even the junk left over after making beer can be used to make ethanol. These sources promise to yield more ethanol per acre and won't need fertilizer. Sources from corn are just an intermediate step for now.

Regarding Ford... not many car manufacturers promote ethanol more than Ford. Granted they don't endorse more than 10% for your FEH, but that doesn't mean it's not built to handle 30%. I have no problem fueling my new, still in warranty FEH on 85% ethanol, except I want to break it in, finish any warranty work and establish a baseline mileage on E10 first. I'm also waiting on a conversion kit to be available since there's a certain brand I want and they don't have a version that's compatible with the o2 sensor in the FEH yet.

What about all this food for fuel controversy? Turns out it was a smear campaign started by the food industry as an excuse to raise your food prices. Those companies are being investigated for fraud.

Links: Feds probe food-price collusion, and Biofuel myths and facts, New reports shows ethanol lowers gas prices.

FWIW, I'm a moderator at E85vehicles.com and fuel-saver.org, an active price poster at E85prices.com, possess an auto-mech degree from the 70's and have used E85 for the last year in my 2005 drunkin Rav4 and 30-60% ethanol for 6 months prior to that. I didn't even have to replace my fuel filter. I had some minor cold start issues on E85 in the spring and fall, but that's because this vehicle wasn't optimized for E85, which likes a high compression engine to be truly efficient.

 

I believe that Ethanol has its place as a fuel additive or substitute. State governments should be forced to use E10, E30 & E85 for all their vehicles. After all, its only fair that they be forced to use it since most state government vehicles, like California, are exempt from using most emisions control devices. They should even be forced to mix it into the straight gas themselves so that it would leave straight gas available for everyone. I'd personally not mind using E30 over E10 if it would not void my Ford warranty and also give me the same FE as straight gas. Oh, and if i could find it here in NJ. But thats an argument for a diferent thread.

 

New Jersey appears to be a "dry" state. http://e85prices.com/new-jersey.html (No E85 prices posted in the last 30 days.)

I know many states, like MN require employees with state-issued FFV's to fill with alternative fuels, but leave it to their discretion, ie. if the fuel is way overpriced or they can't find it in a reasonable distance, they are permitted to use gas. Considering how many states subsidize their ethanol prices, it's only right their employees should use it.

 

Rick, I'm not an expert on all the pros and cons of ethanol, but I used straight gas and can compare it to E-10 in my engines. People here can take or leave my opinions and I feel ethanol is a scam and prefer straight gas. I think corn based ethanol is not greener, is over subsidized with our tax dollars and damages my engines. I just found this article (3 pages) about other problems with ethanol:

"Another misconception is that ethanol is green. In fact, corn production depends on huge amounts of fossil fuel -- not just the diesel needed to plow fields and transport crops, but also the vast quantities of natural gas used to produce fertilizers. Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields also silts up the Mississippi River and creates a vast dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico every summer. What's more, when corn ethanol is burned in vehicles, it is as dirty as conventional gasoline and does little to solve global warming: E85 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a modest fifteen percent at best, while fueling the destruction of tropical forests."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...al_boondoggles

GaryG

 

Hi Gary.

Others maybe disagree, but I guess I'd trust the Energy.gov source (pdf) over the Rolling Stone for my stats. I know yields have improved drastically in the last few years as better corn hybrids are created. Like I said before, corn is just a transition. It's very possible the Rolling Stone writer is using old statistics.

As for the fertilizer runoff, that could be cause by anyone (including home owners) along the Mississippi river. No one can say it's caused by corn for ethanol use. A lot of corn is grown for human consumption as well.

As for it being a dirty fuel, the American Lung Association endorsed E85 as a fuel (and CleanAirChoice.org)

Rain deforestation has been a problem for years, well before this year's increase in ethanol as a fuel.

I'm no expert either, just a satisfied user. The sources I've read say it's a good fuel and getting better. Pretty much the same reasoning we bought hybrids. I just thought I'd make a few points in case you were relying on questionable evidence.

I guess we should say we disagree on the subject.

 

This is a little off topic but I need to chime in.
Yes, Gary G offers his OPINIONS and not facts, so don't get upset over what he posts, just realize those are his ( sometime uninformed ) OPINIONS.

Here is my own personal study:


And I can tell you I work for a major engineering firm and I audit ethanol production plants as part of my job.

The "average" ethanol plant uses 30,000 btu of fossil fuel to produce 1 76,000 btu gallon of corn based ethanol.

The best ethanol plant in the nation uses only 6,500 btu of fossil fuel to make the same 76,000 btu gallon of ethanol. This plant is currently making nearly 40 million gallons per year for 6,500 btu each, but is a one of a kind. It cost more to build ( about double ) but hopefully more of this type will follow.

NONE of the gas you burn grows back next year.
A portion of the ethanol you use WILL grow back next year.
DEFINATELY better than pure gas, unless you only look at MPG which is FOOLish.
-John

 

Hi John. Nice chart. Nice results. Think what you could do with a $1 price spread.

Actually this was one of the more civilized discussions regarding ethanol that I've participated in. Some of them got downright nasty. I thought Gary was a gentleman. (It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.)

I was thinking after I posted that rant, about the amount of water required to make ethanol vs oil.

From the November 2007 edition of Corn Connection (Iowa):

"To accurately compare apples to apples, however, we start with the fact that about three gallons of water are needed to make one gallon of ethanol and, for usage and/or processing that results in pounds rather than gallons, you’ll also need to know that one pound of ethanol uses .45 gallons of water.

First let’s consider the oil industry’s basic unit of measure, one barrel of crude oil, which is the equivalent of 42 gallons. It requires 1,851 gallons of water to refine each barrel of crude, or 44.07 gallons of water for each gallon of crude."

Another source cited 94 gallons of water to make gasoline. Water and Ethanol

You're welcome to join us at e85vehicles.com and e85prices.com.

Well, this is off-topic for the subject so I'm not going to wear out my welcome.

 

Rick, your quote of the W Bush Admin has problems. Where are the references? Big Oil has taken control of our government and GPSman1 works in that industry as he has stated with his so called audits. What a joke, he states I have no facts and then gives his phony graphs he made.

After looking at your reference post, I go with Rolling Stone as a much better source any day. Bush has a 28% approval rating, give it up! Even Colin Powell has endorsed Obama.

Corn Ethanol is **** and we disagree!

 

I think we can all agree that Ethanol is a highly contraversial topic. But I see no reason for all the anamosity in the posts.

Gary, I view you as knowledgable in FE methods. John, I view you, based upon posts here and in other groups, as knowledgable in Ethanol. Gary, could the chart that John posted be one he created, i.e., not fake, because it was his tank data?

There is absolutely no need to be so **** critical here. Gary, you are very pasionate about your views on ethanol. Don't let that passion detract from the value of this forum.