I avoid 10% Ethanol. Now 15% Ethanol is coming??

[Aquineas]

Here's an article that Inside Line did on cheap gas. Apparently, it isn't as detrimental as the oil companies would have us believe:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/is-cheap-gas-bad-for-your-car.html

Here's a relevant quote by Randy Stevens, chief engineer for Toyota's Avalon:

Likewise, Randy Stephens, chief engineer for Toyota's Avalon, isn't wholly convinced by the claims of engine protection afforded by higher-priced gas. He says fuel experts at his company study the effects of different brands of gas on the Toyota engines. Automotive engineers disassemble engines after 10,000 miles of running them on different brands of gas to see if there is a difference.

"Honestly, in the 10 years I've been in charge of Avalon, I've never seen one come back with any sort of deposit issue," Stephens says.

 

[Top Gear]

Well, one engineer promoting one car model's ability to withstand bad gas doesn't prove much. I've had and been around many Toyotas, and they're not the most sensitive cars in the lot. My racier vehicles definitely notice the difference, and I've had specific problems with the Genesis Coupe running on low-end E10. Believe what you want, but there are definitely differences in various brands, grades and blends of gas.

 

[Mark_888]

Here's an article that Inside Line did on cheap gas. Apparently, it isn't as detrimental as the oil companies would have us believe:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/is-cheap-gas-bad-for-your-car.html

About 20 years ago (not sure about exact dates) there definitely was a difference in brands of gas, but BMW did some testing and published the results and the other gas companies cleaned up their act and brought their gas up to the same general standards as the Top Tier brands.

 

[Aquineas]

Well, one engineer promoting one car model's ability to withstand bad gas doesn't prove much. I've had and been around many Toyotas, and they're not the most sensitive cars in the lot. My racier vehicles definitely notice the difference, and I've had specific problems with the Genesis Coupe running on low-end E10. Believe what you want, but there are definitely differences in various brands, grades and blends of gas.

Assuming that the fuel in question isn't watered down and is what it's advertised to be, since most gasoline comes from a common stock, and the differences between manufacturers are largely in the additives, given that the 2012s are direct injection anyway, the detergent additives in particular aren't going to make much difference. With DI, the fuel never sees the valves, so there's no chance of those detergents performing their intended task. It's an unfortunate by-product of shooting the fuel directly into the cylinder from the injector.

In any case, carry on; we can each vote with our wallets, and neither of us will lose any sleep .

 

[Top Gear]

...given that the 2012s are direct injection anyway, the detergent additives in particular aren't going to make much difference...

No, mine isn't, as that change came to the Coupe in 2013.

With DI, the fuel never sees the valves, so there's no chance of those detergents performing their intended task. It's an unfortunate by-product of shooting the fuel directly into the cylinder from the injector.

Well, there are reports of other unintended areas of build-up, so don't assume too much.

No offense, but you (and a few others in these related threads) sound like you're reaching for excuses to buy the cheap stuff for your pride and joy? Not sure how anyone rationalizes that being a car enthusiast, but I'd rather rely on my decades of direct experience with various engines on different brands, grades and ethanol blends and sleep easy knowing I've put the best gas in my vehicle, because the vehicle definitely runs better and gets better mileage on the good stuff.

 

[Aquineas]

No, mine isn't, as that change came to the Coupe in 2013.

Well, there are reports of other unintended areas of build-up, so don't assume too much.

No offense, but you (and a few others in these related threads) sound like you're reaching for excuses to buy the cheap stuff for your pride and joy? Not sure how anyone rationalizes that being a car enthusiast, but I'd rather rely on my decades of direct experience with various engines on different brands, grades and ethanol blends and sleep easy knowing I've put the best gas in my vehicle, because the vehicle definitely runs better and gets better mileage on the good stuff.

Nah no offense taken- I buy what I would call mid-tier. I don't however believe there's that much difference in the additives. But I still have enough caution to not go bottom basement. On the rare occasion I *have* gone bottom-basement (when there was no choice), frankly I haven't noticed a difference in mileage or felt a drop-off in power on the butt dyno.

 

[Top Gear]

Cool I'd wager your Prelude, RX-7 and Cobra would be sensitive enough to these things. Any problems with E10 in your older cars?

 

[Aquineas]

Cool I'd wager your Prelude, RX-7 and Cobra would be sensitive enough to these things. Any problems with E10 in your older cars?

I should clarify, that's my history of cars, not my current ownership. I only own the Genny at the moment; I'm sorry for the misleading sig. As far as engine sophistication, my Genesis has the highest performance engine with the highest compression of any engine I've ever owned. To think back in 1999 my Cobra struggled to reach 320hp and had to be recalled for an extrude honed intake to be installed to reach its advertised horsepower numbers. I love classic cars because they're classic cars, but the reality is that cars are better now by far than they've ever been. More power than ever with better mileage and a lot safer, whether it be due to the propensity to avoid an accident or accident survive-ability.

Back on topic, with regards to gas, I just don't trust big oil companies and their marketing. That more than anything is where my skepticism about the top-tier brands comes from. Have them (the oil companies) explain sometime why diesel is so much more expensive than gasoline, when up until 15 or 20 years ago, it was just the opposite. Greedy *(@*@!()!5%s.

 

[Top Gear]

I agree. Even the high HP cars of old were heavy, had no brakes or handling, no safety or anything in terms of information technology. I've had some fast vehicles, but my Coupe is faster than nearly any muscle car, yet is also amazingly safe, technologically advanced, and has incredible handling and brakes, etc, etc. It's the best of both worlds for its price point.

Generally, diesel, as well as gas, is more expensive because of supply and demand, not because of greed itself. You see all those big rigs clogging the roads today, as well as the huge shipping industry? That's why, put simply, and it's happening world-wide. Plus, speaking of greed, we're well past Peak Oil and still in denial, nationally. The basic cost of fuel will never go back down, but will keep on rising. A long time ago they thought ethanol would put a dent in the problem, but it's only caused more problems, of course.

Since oil is running out and there's no replacing it, we'll by necessity need to run 100% electric vehicles (some are very fast, as a consolation). What's more, the electricity to charge them up will need to be generated not by coal plants but by bonafide renewable energy sources. Until the power grid changes to renewable where you live, there's little point in driving an electric car, as you're just changing demand from oil to coal, which is arguably worse. The oil companies know this, thus fighting it, but as long as we have a political and consumer economic culture in the US rooted in ignoring real problems until the last possible minute, we'll be paying higher and higher fuel prices to greedy oil companies subsidized by Congress for decades to come. And this is just being realistic based on the facts

 

[427435]

It's interesting that the relative price of gas vs diesel came up on this post about ethanol enhanced gas. While there are other reasons as well, the fact that 5-10% of our fuel needs for spark engine powered vehicles is coming from ethanol does indeed reduce the demand for gas------and lowers the price of it.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Gunkk]

Have them (the oil companies) explain sometime why diesel is so much more expensive than gasoline, when up until 15 or 20 years ago, it was just the opposite. Greedy *(@*@!()!5%s.

Cracking. Once they could modify the molecular weight, they moved more production toward lighter MW gasoline and away from diesel.

 

[Chad Keller]

Okay, I'm breathing. Was on my soap box. But not sold on any of your points. Having to fill up more often b/c of less gas mileage does not solve dependacy on foreign oil.

I travel for my job and it's hard finding a gas station in unfamiliar territory that sell "non ethanol" gasoline. It erks me every time I am on empty trying to find gas and the only thing in site is ethanol. Loving my Rspec like I do, I'm not a fan of giving it some liberal watered down gas. Don't get me started on filling up my 30' Cobalt boat with twin 496mag HO big blocks.

Thanks for the info.

I am with you. It's called the farm lobby. Higher prices on grain makes farmers more money. Have you noticed food prices? I am sure ethanol doesn't help reduce food costs. I drive about 50,000 miles a year for my job and there is a significant difference in mileage using ethanol.

 

[Mark_888]

It's interesting that the relative price of gas vs diesel came up on this post about ethanol enhanced gas. While there are other reasons as well, the fact that 5-10% of our fuel needs for spark engine powered vehicles is coming from ethanol does indeed reduce the demand for gas------and lowers the price of it.

Because of ethanol production, the price of grain has increased significantly, and this has caused many food prices to increase, including meat (since almost all livestock is grain-fed).

Even some left-wing types are now questioning the use of ethanol because it is increasing starvation problems in very poor countries who can no longer afford to purchase US grain. Even if the specific grain used for ethanol is not purchased, so much more land is now used for ethanol grains that it has reduced the amount of all other crop production, increasing the prices of all crops (and meat).

 

[427435]

Because of ethanol production, the price of grain has increased significantly, and this has caused many food prices to increase, including meat (since almost all livestock is grain-fed).

Even some left-wing types are now questioning the use of ethanol because it is increasing starvation problems in very poor countries who can no longer afford to purchase US grain. Even if the specific grain used for ethanol is not purchased, so much more land is now used for ethanol grains that it has reduced the amount of all other crop production, increasing the prices of all crops (and meat).

First, the price of food has little to do with crop prices. See below:

Food dollar going where? Farmers get just 12 percent
Mar. 18, 2011



American farmers and agribusinesses receive just 11.6 cents of every dollar spent on food in the U.S., according to recent analysis from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
That is down from the nearly 20 cents USDA calculated, using a different method, in the past and undercuts arguments that farm prices for commodities and feedstuffs like corn are driving higher retail food prices.

American farmers and agribusinesses receive just 11.6 cents of every dollar spent on food in the U.S., according to recent analysis from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That is down from the nearly 20 cents USDA calculated, using a different method, in the past and undercuts arguments that farm prices for commodities and feedstuffs like corn are driving higher retail food prices.

“American farmers continue to produce more and more food and feed, yet they are receiving less and less of each dollar spent at the retail level,” said Geoff Cooper, Renewable Fuels Association Vice President of Research and Analysis. “Energy intensive activities like food processing, transportation, and packaging gobble up nearly three times the value farmers receive. And as oil prices continue to rise, an even larger share of every dollar spent on food is paying for the higher energy costs facing the entire supply chain.”

With news reports of food prices going higher, driven largely by dramatic mark ups in the price of fresh fruits and vegetables and meat products, many are seeking to blame farmers and biofuel producers for the run up. This USDA analysis, as well as a review of recent speculative activity in commodity markets, once again proves that volatile energy prices and Wall Street speculation are the primary factors driving food prices higher.

According to USDA, the second-largest contributor to food prices – only trailing labor costs – is the combination of food processing, packaging, transportation, all of which are highly energy-intensive activities. And, as labor costs tend to be more stable and predictable, the volatility in energy prices is driving the sticker shock Americans may be feeling now at the checkout counter. Totaling up the percentages for food processing, packaging, transportation – all energy intensive activities – and actual energy costs, nearly 33 percent of each food dollar is spent in these energy intensive areas. If you frequently eat away from home, labor and energy costs gobble up even more of your food dollar and leave just 3.4 percent for those involved in agriculture.

Since much of the criticism is aimed at American ethanol producers and their demand for corn, it is worthwhile to note that the corn value of each food dollar spent is negligible. Indeed, a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation can be used to approximate the contribution of corn to the 11.6 percent farm and agribusiness share of the overall food dollar. Over the past few years, corn has typically represented about 15 percent of the total farm value of all U.S. agricultural food and feed products. Thus, it could be argued that corn’s share of the food dollar is just 1.7 percent (15 percent of 11.6 percent).

“Admittedly, this math is rough but it serves to demonstrate the minimal impact corn price has in determining the retail price of food,” said Cooper. “Studies have shown that there is no statistical relationship between corn prices and retail food prices.”

More on the USDA analysis and the role of speculators in the corn market can be found here and here.


Second, after the ethanol process, the remaining part is called distillers grain which is very high in protein and fed to livestock. Only about 1/3 of the value of a bushel of corn is used in the ethanol process. The rest still ends up as livestock feed-----------which is all the field corn was ever intended to be.


Third, if anyone wants to fa#t around trying to find "pure" gas, you've got way too much time on your hands. Twelve + years of using it in everything from my 1960's McCulloch chain saw, to my '67 Vette, to my 77 IH Scout, to my motorhome, to my boat, to my 4 air-cooled garden tractors and mowers (one dates back to 1965), and to my newer
vehicles has been without a single problem.

Fourth, at most your gas mileage will drop 3% with E10 if you use it consistently.

 

[Mark_888]

First, the price of food has little to do with crop prices.

If you Google:
ethanol food prices
You will get lots of hits. Here are just three of them:

Paying more for food? Blame the ethanol mandate
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/index.html

Study: U.S. could put a big dent in food prices by relaxing ethanol rules:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ent-in-food-prices-by-relaxing-ethanol-rules/

Increased Food Costs Due to US Ethanol Policy are Eating American Family Budgets
http://www.nationalchickencouncil.o...ol-policy-are-eating-american-family-budgets/

 

[427435]

If you Google:
ethanol food prices
You will get lots of hits. Here are just three of them:

Paying more for food? Blame the ethanol mandate
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/index.html

Study: U.S. could put a big dent in food prices by relaxing ethanol rules:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ent-in-food-prices-by-relaxing-ethanol-rules/

Increased Food Costs Due to US Ethanol Policy are Eating American Family Budgets
http://www.nationalchickencouncil.o...ol-policy-are-eating-american-family-budgets/

Your first link is to an "editorial" type written by a person who knowingly (or unknowingly) makes the usual mistake of assuming that nothing of value is left after a bushel of corn is used to make about 2.8 gallons of ethanol. When the feed value of the distillers grain is figured in, only about 1.6 billion bushels of corn would be used-----not the 4.7 billion the writer claims. The rest of her claims are very general without any real documentation. She does admit that corn is mostly used for livestock feed----------so if you're concerned, eat less meat.

Your 2nd link "estimates" that the price of corn would drop 20% with reduced ethanol usage. That would than reduce the price of food (using the USDA's estimate that corn makes up 1.7% of food costs) a whopping 0.34%!!!!!!!! That means $3 of groceries would go down 1 cent!!! Do you think that would get passed along to the consumer???

Of course, the increase in the price of gas is not mentioned in this article. That is exactly what would result if ethanol usage is reduced. That is due not only to more gas being needed to offset the reduced ethanol content but also due to lower refining splits required due to the need to produce higher octane gas. The use of 115 octane ethanol allows the refinery's to produce 84 octane gas (increasing their splits per barrel of oil) and still end up with 87 octane fuel.

Your 3rd link is from the chicken growers association who are crying crocodile tears of course. Since 2000, the American consumer has been spending less than 10% of their income on food. In 1985, it was 11.7%; in 1975, it was 15.1%; in the 40's, it was around 20%; in the 30's, it was around 25%.

If your belly is full, don't complain about food prices. If you do want to complain about food prices, ask about the 88% of a food $ that goes to all the people between the farmer and you.

 

[Mark_888]

Your first link is to an "editorial" type written by a person who knowingly (or unknowingly) makes the usual mistake of assuming that nothing of value is left after a bushel of corn is used to make about 2.8 gallons of ethanol. When the feed value of the distillers grain is figured in, only about 1.6 billion bushels of corn would be used-----not the 4.7 billion the writer claims. The rest of her claims are very general without any real documentation. She does admit that corn is mostly used for livestock feed----------so if you're concerned, eat less meat.

Your 2nd link "estimates" that the price of corn would drop 20% with reduced ethanol usage. That would than reduce the price of food (using the USDA's estimate that corn makes up 1.7% of food costs) a whopping 0.34%!!!!!!!! That means $3 of groceries would go down 1 cent!!! Do you think that would get passed along to the consumer???

Of course, the increase in the price of gas is not mentioned in this article. That is exactly what would result if ethanol usage is reduced. That is due not only to more gas being needed to offset the reduced ethanol content but also due to lower refining splits required due to the need to produce higher octane gas. The use of 115 octane ethanol allows the refinery's to produce 84 octane gas (increasing their splits per barrel of oil) and still end up with 87 octane fuel.

Your 3rd link is from the chicken growers association who are crying crocodile tears of course. Since 2000, the American consumer has been spending less than 10% of their income on food. In 1985, it was 11.7%; in 1975, it was 15.1%; in the 40's, it was around 20%; in the 30's, it was around 25%.

If your belly is full, don't complain about food prices. If you do want to complain about food prices, ask about the 88% of a food $ that goes to all the people between the farmer and you.

I am guessing that you are in the farming business. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of links like those above, and I only picked a few that first came up on Google. I personally am not an expert in farming or food costs, but a lot of people who appear to be experts seem to disagree with you.

Of course, your recommendation to eat less meat is an admission that livestock feed prices are significantly higher due to the massive amount of crops now devoted to ethanol production, so maybe you do agree with the experts.

 

[Chad Keller]

I am guessing that you are in the farming business. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of links like those above, and I only picked a few that first came up on Google. I personally am not an expert in farming or food costs, but a lot of people who appear to be experts seem to disagree with you.

Of course, your recommendation to eat less meat is an admission that livestock feed prices are significantly higher due to the massive amount of crops now devoted to ethanol production, so maybe you do agree with the experts.

Farmers are getting "fat" right now with the margins they are making on their crops and the corresponding increases in land values associated with higher crop prices and yields. Most of my family run farms and are doing quite well thanks to ethanol. To dispute that ethanol does not increase food prices by reducing supply of grain for food demonstrates a total misunderstanding of basic economics. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but this seems pretty simple to me. Anyway, back to the flood Genny I just bought. Time to pickle the engine for later use. We are using the parts off the flood to rebuild two other Gennys so we are literally cutting the cars in two pieces and rebuilding. My wife and I will have his and hers 2011, and 2012 4.6's to drive. I will have one to drive in two weeks and can't wait!

 

[427435]

I am guessing that you are in the farming business. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of links like those above, and I only picked a few that first came up on Google. I personally am not an expert in farming or food costs, but a lot of people who appear to be experts seem to disagree with you.

Of course, your recommendation to eat less meat is an admission that livestock feed prices are significantly higher due to the massive amount of crops now devoted to ethanol production, so maybe you do agree with the experts.

Nope, I'm happily retired from an engineering career. However, I did grow up on a farm and still have good friends who farmed all their lives.

You insinuated a financial interest in my posts----------consider the financial interests of big oil and follow the money. Ethanol has decreased the demand for gasoline and cut their profit margins on a barrel of oil as a result. Thus lots of misleading information is quietly provided to liberal and media types in a campaign against ethanol.

Would the price of steak be cheaper if there was no ethanol being made from corn------------maybe a few pennies. But, the price of gas would go up even more. And you failed to respond to the fact that the cost of our food, relative to our income, has never been lower.

Even more interesting is that you failed to respond to my statement that, "Your 2nd link "estimates" that the price of corn would drop 20% with reduced ethanol usage. That would than reduce the price of food (using the USDA's estimate that corn makes up 1.7% of food costs) a whopping 0.34%!!!!!!!! That means $3 of groceries would go down 1 cent!!! Do you think that would get passed along to the consumer???" This is using the very links you posted. Do the math.

 

[427435]

Farmers are getting "fat" right now with the margins they are making on their crops and the corresponding increases in land values associated with higher crop prices and yields. Most of my family run farms and are doing quite well thanks to ethanol. To dispute that ethanol does not increase food prices by reducing supply of grain for food demonstrates a total misunderstanding of basic economics. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but this seems pretty simple to me. Anyway, back to the flood Genny I just bought. Time to pickle the engine for later use. We are using the parts off the flood to rebuild two other Gennys so we are literally cutting the cars in two pieces and rebuilding. My wife and I will have his and hers 2011, and 2012 4.6's to drive. I will have one to drive in two weeks and can't wait!

And I'm afraid that you have a total misunderstanding of ethanol production and distillers grain----------not to mention the fact that 88% of your food costs go to people between you and the farmer.