But if I'm using 5% more fuel, it contains 10% less fossil fuels. The point ethanol advocates make is that emissions are supposedly different than the fossil fuels. I'm no chemist, just throwing it out there.

And there are no "horrible side effects" to any fuel system made after 1985 (give or take). Yes, older engines with older rubber have had issues. After fuel lines and seals were replaced, things are fine. Remember when leaded fuel was phased out? Old engines had horrible problems with valve seats. Manufacturers adapted and we all run unleaded fuel now.

Alcohol is a great cleaner and by that logic keeps the fuel system clean. I have no added maintenance costs associated with E10. If you refer to the cost of fuel stabilizer for long storage periods, that is necessary with straight gas too.

If you want to hate ethanol, fine with me. At least do it for some real reasons like increased corn prices, pork barrel legislation, whatever. The "it will kill your engine" argument has been debunked many times over as evidenced by the millions of engines that have been using ethanol blended fuel for years with no ill effects.

Make no mistake though, I'm talking strictly about E10. E85 is a different animal all together.

 

E10 will and has routinley run gaskets dry rotted. Not on my bike, but as someone who has been a gas tanker driver for a decade can tell you. The hose end o rings and dry brake valve rings dry rotted on all our trailers back in 2006 when the gas became E10.

Of course our vendor then supplied us with rings that are beefier for that reason, maybe, just maybe the MoCo thought that far ahead too?

Just saying...

 

I believe Fauqier and Rappahannock counties still have straight gas.

 

Currently most ethanol is derived from corn.As an ag crop corn requires more fossil fuel- barrel needed to grow vs barrel ethanol produced. Add in the decreased mpg and decrease in export for food and cattle feed etc I can't see how corn ethanol can be "green".

 

We have 10%. Best I can tell I lost maybe 1-2 MPG at most. I get about 40MPH on average. Its really hard to tell since if I fill frisky I can drop it another 5. Lot more consistent on my truck and I lost about 1 mpg. Average 20mpg.

 

E10 is about like those Smart cars that get 40-42 mpg and are so small you have to open a window to change the radio station. my wife's Jetta diesel gets much better mileage than the smart cars and will cruise all day long at 80.

 

No offense man, but you've swallowed the ethanol argument hook, line, and sinker. I can't say it any plainer: you're using more fuel to go the same distance when ethanol is added to your gasoline. Since your vehicle is now less efficient you are now using MORE fossil fuel, not less.
I don't like not having a choice when it comes to ethanol. In my state and all of the surrounding states gasoline without ethanol isn't available. Every vehicle I own runs better (read more efficient here) on straight gasoline - especially my bikes. Yours does too, you just don't know it.

 

No offense taken since I really couldn't possibly care less about what happens on an internet forum. All I can do is share viewpoints, facts, and opinions that I happen to have.

Now, I never said it didn't run more efficiently on straight gas. I'm not an ethanol proponent at all. What I'm trying to explain is that if you use 5% more fuel on an E10 blend, you have used less fossil fuels than you would have on straight gas.

For example, lets say you go X miles on 1 gallon of straight gas. At the 5% argument (40MPG down to 38MPG), it takes 1.05 gallons of E10. But that 1.05 gallons of E10 is only 90% fossil. That means you've only burned .95 gallons of fossil fuel (straight gas) and .1 gallons of ethanol. That's all. Simple math. If your economy fell off by 20% as you indicate (lets say 40MPG down to 32MPG), that same distance of X would require 1.25 gallons of which 1.13 gallons is fossil fuel (again, straight gas). So yes, if you lose 20% of your MPG, you do burn more fossil fuels.

I work in oil and gas, so I am well aware of BTU factors and the energy contained in various oil and gas products and the relative efficiencies of them.

I know you have your mind made up, and it's good to see you dropped the whole "destroying the engine" argument in favor of the "costs me more in the long run" argument. That's a valid reason to not like ethanol. Well done.

Oh, and I totally agree with you on the not having a choice thing. I'd rather run straight gas, but the truth is that sooner or later (probably not in our lifetimes) we will have no choice but to come up with something else to get us from A to B. Just the way a finite resource is.

 

Locally I have a choice between 93 octane gasohol and 91 octane 100% gas. I take the 100% all the time when possible.

 

Yes your mileage always goes down when using a alcohol product, alcohol only has about 1/2 the BTU's that gasoline has, which means it takes almost twice as much alcohol to produce the same amount of heat as gasoline.
Discovered this years ago when they first started shoving that stuff down our throats in Iowa.