E15 on the way?

[shovel]

Originally Posted by payne171

I would rather feed people with corn rather than put it in our gas tanks. With that said, I don't see why we still offer ANY form of farm subsidies while we are artificially inflating the cost of grains.

What about all the other nonfood uses of corn? Most floor waxes are made from corn... wallpaper paste is made from corn, chalk and crayons and various building materials like plasterboard and redi-mix, charcoal briquettes, cardboard and recycled paper, bedding and textile insulation, cat litter... are those OK?

Keep in mind that farmers, distributors and retailers (of all foods) are big fuel users too, and any money they save on their bottom line (by using biofuels) keeps their operating cost - and our retail price - lower too.

I strongly feel that ethanol is not having, and never has had a negative impact on our food supply. Its strength as a candidate for petroleum replacement is that it pumps/distributes with the same infrastructure as gasoline, requires no new consumer education, and will operate in nearly all of the existing equipment in the real world today.

I genuinely have no idea what people are going on about with potential E15 problems in their cars... (other than the expected difference in BTU's per qty) seriously they have to be making things up just to talk.

[KY_Canyon]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Stations should be labeling the minimum/maximum Ethanol content.

We wouldn't have this problem if Blenderpumps became the norm... We could get pure gasoline next to E85.

The sensors are no longer used...

Amen to that, and you and I live in a state that doesn't require labeling. It would be nice to have the choice between E0 & E10.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...you been free-loading from the State and Gobberment (wink,wink)?

Not unless the govt runs the local C-store.

[roosterk0031]

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

Look at the GM Flex Fuel vehicles, even with the systems to sense ethanol blends and self adjust they have severe decreases in efficiency.

Based on my 2 GM FFV cars you are wrong (fuelly david0031 2002 suburban) and on here 2010 Impala, yes they loose some MPG, but the suburban I had did better better on E85 than it should according to BTU's per gallon.

My stratus follows energy content & MPG almost perfectly. I don't know if there's a fuel sensor, I don't think there is and it doesn't matter, the O2 sensor does everything that needs to be done as long as they sized the fuel pump and injectors large enough to take full load with E85.


We have liquid fuels and will for a long long time.

Field corn is hardly used for people food, unless you count animals turning it into meat & tasty fat the last month of their life.

[KY_Canyon]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Based on my 2 GM FFV cars you are wrong (fuelly david0031 2002 suburban) and on here 2010 Impala, yes they loose some MPG, but the suburban I had did better better on E85 than it should according to BTU's per gallon.

My stratus follows energy content & MPG almost perfectly. I don't know if there's a fuel sensor, I don't think there is and it doesn't matter, the O2 sensor does everything that needs to be done as long as they sized the fuel pump and injectors large enough to take full load with E85.


We have liquid fuels and will for a long long time.

Field corn is hardly used for people food, unless you count animals turning it into meat & tasty fat the last month of their life.

Regarding FFV, I am speaking from daily experience. I own a 2005 Tahoe with 5300 flex engine. While the motor runs fine on blends, it is not as efficient. As far as BTUs, experiencing a 10-20% loss of MPG on E10, I would imagine an even greater loss as the ethanol content goes up.

In regards to "Field Corn" no one is making assumption that the corn could be eaten. The fact is that agriculture in general is downsizing each year, and if the ag resource is diverted to fuel production than that leaves far less for food (more specifically grain) production. This is a large reason for the rapidly increasing import of food product. The ag resource is a limited one, and an increase in one area will generate a decrease in another. The impact we've seen from ethanol production is only the cracking of the door.....at this point, ethanol has reduced our gasoline use by a grand total of 7%. At what price?

We have adequate oil reserves to carry us through to a viable replacement, but IMO ethanol, the ethanol coalition and its mandated use is merely a scheme to take advantage of the "green" mindset, and will do nothing more than delay a realistic long-term solution to our energy use.

[Frank Lee]

In regards to "Field Corn" no one is making assumption that the corn could be eaten.

Wanna bet?

[roosterk0031]

If you are loosing 10-20% with E10 vs E0 there's something wrong with your Tahoe, 02 suburban same engine using E10 and E85 documented miles, my wife doing the driving me recording the MPG she had no concern of MPG or driving habits. Her 15.2 mpg to 12.4 E10 vs E85. I'm not going to mess with the % again, but I know it did better btu/mile with E85 over E10.

2002 Chevrolet Suburban 1500 MPG Reports | Fuelly

30 & 35 fillups. 8800 miles vs 10,900 miles, I'd like to see some documented data, if it drops that bad you need to replace some O2 sensors.

I doubt 98% of drivers would notice 1 or 2% more decrease in MPG E15 vs E10. And some very will may gain MPG. Don't feel like posting the link again for North Dakota/University of MN study on blending ethanol as I have already linked twice in last few days.

Edit: could help it, lost 18% mpg, btu's/gallon down somewhere around 25%.

[Allch Chcar]

You should lose 3% MPG MAXIMUM with E10. At 15MPG that's less than 1/2 a MPG. Any loss that large means something is wrong.

We have an excess of arable land so the food vs fuel argument is not really relevant here just yet, not even close really. In the future we will need more sources of Ethanol besides Corn but we're already exporting over a billion gallons for lack of Domestic demand. That's almost 1/10th of our current production! But what are they going to do? Punish the Ethanol plants for doing their job?

[KY_Canyon]

Let's do the math using the EPA's findings of 4% decrease for E10 vs. pure gasoline. Say that I'm driving 16,000 miles per year (consuming 1000 gals / year @ my previous 16 MPG rate)

E15 MPG would reduce to 15.4 MPG which means that I would consume 1039 gallons of fuel of which 935.1 gallons (90% of 1039) would be pure gasoline. For a total gasoline savings of 64.9 gallons. When pure gas was available along side E10 it was typically 10 cents more per gallon. So, my total cost at today's prices would be:
E10: 1039 @ $3.79 = $3,937.81
E0 : 1000 @ $3.89 = $3,890.00

So, even at what the EPA claims the reduction to be I would be paying more money to use E10. It doesn't take long reading through posts on this site to see the vast number of people talking about their performance with pure gas vs. E10 to see that a 10% efficiency difference is normal.

[roosterk0031]

Less than 2 hours ago you claimed 20% loss, I don't see 10% on the board as a norm, that means the ethanol might as well be water. You swicthed from E15 to 10 precent 90% gasonline. E10 should get 15.52 per my calculations, 1030 gallons of fuel, 103 of ethanol, 900 gallons of gasoling. Or 1000 of E0, E10 results in 100 gallons less gasoline, only 30 gallons more total fuel.

Economics wise, at the closest station to my house today 3.45 vs 3.55, $3553.50(e10/year) vs $3550, a whopping 3.50 difference. I'd like say someting's wrong with this truck too, but sorry to say it's most likely your record keeping. We always have 0.10 differnce so the higher the prices goes the worst it gets economics wise for E10(smaller percentage difference), used to be the clear winner. E10 would have been a winner until a few weeks ago but still only saving you $5-10 a year. But think of the 100 gallons of imported fuel exported $$ vs home grown and manufactured fuel, those dollars spend again and again vs leaving once.

E10 has 3% lower energy (average summer & winter gas blendscombined) anything more than 3% loss in MPG means something is wrong. And based on the other study some cars actually get better MPG with E20 or E30(non-FFV cars).