Supposed to save enviorment & use less foreign oil. Gas Stations here Switched to 10% couple weeks ago..

All summer (7k) checked mileage, average-42+.

Since the 10% Ethanol was added, rode 850 miles and have averaged 36.

Thats riding the same

Thats a drop of 14%.

Trying to figure if it would really save any gasoline usage (foreign oil). fine if it works
Done some math to see.

To make it simple, at 42mpg. lets say I rode 8400 miles..I would use 200 gals.
Then at 36 mpg I rode the same 8400 miles. fuel usage would be 233.3 gals..

So I would use 33.3 mor gals of fuel with the 10% Ethanol.

Take 233gal X .90% of reg gas still in the new mix. that = 209gals. So because of the 14% drop of mileage, we will actually use 9 gals more gas than if they left it alone, (no Ethanol) and on top of that add another 33 gals of Ethanol.. so much for lowering our oil dependency.

Just read a EPS report that said fuel cost will come down $.12 1/2 cents a gal, ooops some one forgot to tell our station. Also the test haven't proved it helps the Environment, they are all over the chart. Some say yes, some no..

Even if we end up with it they still don't know what if any effects it will have long term on Gas engines, and they are now talking about going to a 15% mix.

Ok off my horse..

 

Yep. I got similar results in my FlexFuel Chevy Avalanche when I tried using Ethanol instead of gasoline. Ethanol is cheaper but it didn't make up for the crappy MPG. My truck doesn't flex anymore.

 

ethanol is a scam .less fuel economy, lower power. causing havoc in the boating industry
the goverment subsides the the making of ethanol because it costs so much to make.


JR

 

We've had 10% ethanol for many, many years. I can't tell any difference in any of my vehicles and at .10 cheaper it's an easy choice.

 

Where I live don't have any choice have looked and have not found any pumps that don't say 10% Ethanol or says up to 10% actually...

 

That's OK as long as you realize it isn't really cheaper. You're just paying for it in a different way. Ethanol costs so much to make that the ethanol refineries don't even use it themselves.


"David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University and one of the foremost critics of ethanol, has conducted numerous cost analyses on ethanol production. He's made a name for himself mostly by driving the ethanol industry raving mad. From its very beginnings, when hoe enters soil, ethanol production has not changed much since the nineteenth century. Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.

More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.

So, if we were to switch entirely to ethanol use, we'd run out of petroleum four times as fast."

 

I come down on BOTH sides of the fence, WHENEVER this subject rolls 'round.

Born and raised on a farm in SoDak, and I personally know MANY of my classmates, friends, family, who literally were saved by the rise in corn prices, due to the demand for ethanol.

As a 'consumer', that is BAD news for me. More peeps fighting over the same bushel of corn, equates to HIGHER prices in the supermarket.

I also believe, that WHEN they get it right, the distillation of it, so that they can use switchgrass, or other biomass for the 'base' mat'l, rather than corn and grains, at least they will be headed the right direction.

I HAVE NOT had the opportunity to research the 'new' ethanol plants, but the original phase, actually was a NET LOSS when 'brewing' ethanol. IOW, it took more energy to produce it, than you received from it. S'posedly, that would still lessen our dependence on forn earl, because we would be using our own energy, electricity from coal, natural gas, to make up the diff, and the ethanol would replace some of the forn earl, too. Does it?? ELEPHINO.

We have had it here since the late 70's or early 80's. There were a few stations that would still have an "old gas" pump, that would say "For small engines, collector and vintage autos ONLY."

Some states, sell both. Some states sell all 3.(E-85 being the 3rd)

Cars, scooters,etc, been running on alcohol/ethanol for decades. IMFUO, it is the manufactures, who have drug their feet, because ethanol 'safe' components, seals, rubber prod, etc, have been available for a LONG AZZT time.

AFTER ALL that, BS, IMHO, a lot of the fuel related probs people are experienceing, are NOT caused by ethanol !!!! BUT by all the 'other oxygenators' they are using in the gas, to produce the 'desired' and 'mandated' results. SOME of those are NASTY azzt chemicals. But peeps point to 'ethanol' as the prob.
Like I said, we've had ethanol blend here for close to 30 yrs, BUT 2 or 3 years ago, we ALL started to see a rash of carbs coming thru the door. Did more in one month, than had in 2 or 3 yrs. Almost ALL of them, had this green, almost like "snot", liquid "jello" slime, in the bottom of the bowls. And when I talked to other guys, they were seeing a rash of 'em, also. Still occassionally will see it, but whatever they changed in the formula, WAS NOT working, and caused severe probs, for a lot of peeps.

The reason your mileage goes down, very simple, a gal of ethanol has fewer BTUs of energy in it than good ol' gas.

And, "NO", I don't like ANYTHING MANDATED to US by the Govt., and they seem to be getting 'handier, and handier' at that 'mandating chit'. I'd buy it, BY CHOICE, as a way of s'porting those who till the land. BUT I don't want some jack azz in Wash. telling ALL of us, we HAVE to buy it. Peshally AFTER the oil cos. took the majority of the ethanol industry, over.






YOUR TURN !!! Next !!



.

 

And therein lies what it's all about, a simple subsidy. You have an understanding but most consumers actually believe it makes economic sense, when it really does not. Kinda like the windmills.

 

Good post, Gump. You're right on!

 

Been going back and forth between non ethenol and the 10% blend for a few decades in many different vehicles, the difference in mileage has been unmeasureable for me. In a non O2 sensored, open loop engine, it will run slightly more lean with the 10%, again, unmeasurable unless the engine is was already running the ragged edge of being to lean, then it will cause problems. Ethenol seems to have a lower boiling temp and in some of my carburated engines I get some fuel purculation and vaper lock at times. In some midwest states, ethenol is subsidized at the pump by the state so it is less expensive then the non ethenol, non premium fuels. The debate, does it reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Until I am convinced that it does not, I will favor using it, especially being I have already paid for some of it due to our state subsidizing it.