Are you a current or recent car shopper who bought an EV and then installed solar – or who had solar already, making the decision to go electric easier?
Are you a recent EV buyer (past 3 months) as a result of manufacturer incentives and dealer discounts on these vehicles, including year-end deals? Were you convinced to buy an EV after finding a good end-of-year deal, or due to uncertainty around which EVs will no longer qualify for full/partial EV tax credits in 2024? A national business reporter is interested in speaking with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/15 if interested in sharing your story.

E-10 Gasohol coming soon

joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
edited March 2014 in Buick
going to force ethanol on the whole country like it or not.I wonder what problems were in for?


  • ywilsonywilson Member Posts: 135
    much of a problem for the newer cars. I have seen some older cars have a little trouble but all the cars I have owned and have used ethanol in never gave me any problems.
  • mainsail2mainsail2 Member Posts: 77
    ethanol is hard on rubber hoses with extended use. Will this be a major problem, or will additives be added in order to reduce the purported damage? Will ethanol be added to premium grades or only to regular and mid-grades?
  • swschradswschrad Member Posts: 2,171
    just about anything made since the late 1970s oil embargoes, when states started mandating ethanol blends, should be rot-resistant. in fact, there are a few "green leaf" cars and trucks that run on E70 very nicely in widespread production, such as the 4-banger Ranger. there are only some 100 locations across the country that dispense E70, however, so it's mostly a "good politics makes good public relations" issue. E70 is 70% grain alcohol by volume, diluted with unpleasant chemical and petroleum items that make it not suitable for use as "white lightning" any more. leave the DWI to the car, not the driver :-D
  • artwisartwis Member Posts: 66
    10% ethanol? If it is we have been using 10% for several years in Wisconsin.
  • joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
    is 10% ethanol and the only other i know of is E-85 85% ethanol.I believe the midwest corn states have been using it for years and am wondering how they are doing.
  • artwisartwis Member Posts: 66
    Guess I live in one of them! I checked the pumps yesterday and reg and mid grade were 5% and premium was 10% ethanol. It says on the pump that it is used to raise octane. We have had it in most of our gas for years. It doesn't seem to have any effect pro or con to the operation or maintenance of our vehicles (the wifes 2002 century has been as high as 34.7 mpg on the reg. 5% stuff). I hadn't heard that congress was going to require 10% ethanol in all gas. Sounds more like something the non-elected EPA would do. If this does pass it will be purely politics to please farmers as there's no economic value to the rest of us and I doubt it will raise the farmers corn prices.
    Bottom line don't worry about the stuff at least in levels up to 10%.
  • joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
    >I hadn't heard that congress was going to require 10% ethanol in all gas.<

    I heard its in the new energy bill and the Senate majority leader is from a corn state and that its a done deal.To put 10% ethanol in all US fuel is a lot of CORN,i wonder what people will drink.
  • mullins87mullins87 Member Posts: 959
    This may be a stupid question, but here goes. Why don't we burn more ethanol anyway? I'm not a chemist, but doesn't ethanol burn in much the same way as gasoline? However, doesn't pure ethanol burn less "efficiently", thereby lowering fuel mileage? Unless it costs a great deal more to produce ethanol, the only drawbacks I see are a few hundred dollars worth of vehicle mods and lower mpg figures.

    Educate me, please.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    Gasohol gives lower mileage per gallon, because there are fewer BTUs in ethanol (ethyl alcohol) than in gasoline per volume.
  • swschradswschrad Member Posts: 2,171
    and that is supposed to reduce smog-forming NOx or carbon monoxide or make you stay in your lane or something or other. it's a big deal to the EPA. the alternative in fuel blends is MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), another oil product, and one that quite tenaciously contaminates water supplies and is a potent carcinogen. so MTBE is going away no matter what.

    California, New York, and other states where the corn in is the statehouse and not in the fields, are just breaking out into picket signs and rioting themselves to death over some dang ol' bunch of hick FARMERS taking all their money. as opposed to good ol' boys from the oil patch.

    oh, and incidentally, it's the Minneapolis and Omaha boardroom crowd that would get all the money, the Cargills and ConAgras... the farmers might see another nickel a bushel for their $2.45 corn.

    basically, some folks wouldn't be happy if you hung them with a NEW rope, and this is one of those situations. no resources, 100-mile commutes to the office towers from their cozy gated communities or at least some place with trees and no gang symbols on the sides of the cop cars, they can't take off against the folks they want to scream at, so they get after the ones with some ingenuity who don't live nearby.

    HELLO, coasts! you can WALK, you know. why not pay Americans instead of OPEC and their buds?

    guess the dissenters would rather push than ride electrics, or busses, or bikes.
  • joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
    the viewpoint.
  • ywilsonywilson Member Posts: 135
    I would like to see more US than OPEC any day.
  • artwisartwis Member Posts: 66
    Just bought a Ford Ranger and it can use up to E-85 fuel. The down side is Ford says I have to go to the severe maintenance schedule if I ever use E-85.
  • joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
    I understand flex-fuel vehicles like yours don't give good milage on gasoline.Someone with a flex-fuel GM product was complaining.What do you think?
  • ywilsonywilson Member Posts: 135
    The severe maintenance schedule is reccommended to most people. If you read what the car companies say the severe requirements are then we would all be on severe maint. I like the idea of not using so much petro anyway but still getting to enjoy our vehicles.
  • bobistheoilguybobistheoilguy Member Posts: 270

     click on the FAQ's about oil.

     click on fuel and additives.

    I'd post the address direct but this site won't allow me to post such a long address.

  • artwisartwis Member Posts: 66
    joe3891 As far as mileage my Ranger with the 4cyl/manual 5 spd is rated at 24/28. First tank of fuel = 28.2 mpg with 90% hiway 10% city and I presume it will get a little better after it gets a few miles on it. Ford says it takes 2000-3000 miles to get to the best mpg. My wife has a 2002 buick century and I'm not sure if it is flexfuel or not. I do know it gets excellent mileage with the best tank at 34.7 mpg and since new always over 31 mpg per tank which beats the EPA estimate. Our 87 octane fuel here in central Wis. is 5% ethanol.

    ywilson On the contrary, Ford is very explicit on their severe requirement at least for my Ranger. Very few are required to use the severe schedule. 3000 miles for severe use and 5000 for regular use.
  • joe3891joe3891 Member Posts: 759
    an article in the morning paper that states the companies ethanol plants are polluting at alarming rate,so much for clean ethanol.
  • bmaigebmaige Member Posts: 140
    During the fuel crisis years ago Mother Earth News had a seminar on home production of alcohol for fuel which I attended. At the time they were flying an ultralite and had a Ford F-150 running on alcohol using gas only to start the engine. Some racing cars used to run on alcohol, and proably still do.

    The alcohol Mother Earth News was using was coming right out of a still they were running using the same basic process old red necks used to make "white lightning" years ago. Alcohol has a lower boiling point than water, and the boiling point of water is 212 degrees farenheit, so they just heated their water-alcohol solution to a point the alcohol evaporated and the water didn't, the alcohol went in gaseous form into a condensor where it was cooled, recondensed, and run off into a separate container. I find it hard to believe ethanol plants can't be designed that would pollute less than oil refineries, since it requires relatively low heat to generate.

    The thing is, coming out of a still it is about 170 or 180 proof, which is 85% or 90% alchohol and the rest water. That will run in an engine with a little timing adjustment and fuel feed modification. The expense comes in trying to make alcohol 200 proof. Getting that last bit of water out of it is expensive, and only necessary if it will be mixed with gas. Alcohol and water mix nicely and stay mixed, but if alchohol with water in it is put in gas the water separates, which creates havoc. By the way, years ago, wasn't alcohol produced on the farm and used in their engines? I don't know if it still exists, but during the fuel crisis the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms created a short form and license specifically to allow people to make alcohol for fuel purposes.

    The question is, why aren't we?
  • mullins87mullins87 Member Posts: 959
    The 10-15% water that is in the alcohol straight from the still, will it vaporize in the combustion chamber or will it remain in its liquid form only to be forced out by the exhaust stroke? Lots of race cars burn alcohol, certain divisions of dragsters, some (maybe all, I don't know) of the open wheel "Indy" style cars, just to mention a few. I am certain more do. I don't know the mix of their fuels though. I am not a chemist, but I have been saying all along that we should be burning alcohol. I am an average shadetree mechanic, but from what I understand, it should only cost about $200-$300 to convert the typical family car to run on it. I'm pretty sure the fuel mileage will decrease, not sure how much. If the "moonshine" alcohol can be produced cheaply enough so that the end result of the decreased fuel mileage coupled with lower per gallon alcohol prices results in the same cost per mile to go down the road as gasoline does now, why aren't we doing it?!? What is the one thing this country has more than any other country? CORN! I do not necessarily feel this way because of pollution, I am tired of all the trouble OPEC causes us. I say we switch now and let the OPEC nations fend for themselves. I would be more than willing to shell out the cash to convert my wife's Cougar right now. Of course, I do also realize that we would have to find a substitute for my diesel truck. How have the soy based diesel fuel tests been going?
  • bburton1bburton1 Member Posts: 395
    Well it surprises me no one has brought up the new farm bill just passed. This thing will mandate 20 to 30% ethanol. The whole idea of ethanol was to reduce pollution. Well one of these days someone will do a real study on this one and they will find that use of ethanol actually adds to pollution. During the summer this stuff is much more volatile than gas and evaporates. Also you get less energy out of alcohol. Finally anyone who has any knowledge of the farming business knows the row crop grain business is based on oil. Many call it well head meaning petroleum farming.

    We tax payers are paying a $18 per barrell tariff on every barrel of ethanol produced and the stuff raises the cost of gasoline.

    This whole bloody thing is about who owns the US Senate and to a lesser degree the House of Reps. Nah it won't really harm new vehicles but the whole way this thing is run by the Agri Business people who are in this one in a big way is shameful. This whole ethanol bit is a great demo of how our politicians are controlled by Agri Business. GW Bush said in IA he thought ethanol was a good idea-for an oil man to say that really says a lot about how much control the Agri Bus guys have over our politicians. End of rant.
  • oldharryoldharry Member Posts: 413
    I don't remember exactly, but distilling ethanol uses quite a bit of energy. I believe it was more than a third of what can be produced, so you use one barrel of oil to produce enough alcohol to replace the one you used and two more barrels. On a small scale, farmers could build solar stills, and sell the stuff to refiners that would finish the dehydration. That wouldn't produce enough for 10 %, but would help keep cost down.

    There is more carbon dioxide produced overall, however.

  • bmaigebmaige Member Posts: 140
    How much energy does it take to make a gallon of gasoline from crude oil? How much does it take to transport the crude from the Middle East to the refinery? How much damage is done to the environment in drilling, pumping, transporting, and refining it? Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water because it may appear on the surface that alchohol production takes more energy than does gasoline.

    Ethanol, as I stated earlier, has a low evaporation point. The "moonshiners" of years past used simple devices burning wood or whatever with condensors cooled by streams in many southern woods years ago. So why would we have to rely on oil products to produce it? That is our mentality, unfortunately. We have been dependent on oil so long that is the first and only thing we think of when we need energy to do something. We have had submarines and surface ships running on nuclear power plants for years, so why not use similar technology to power ethanol production and we won't use any petroleum products. Or, as suggested by someone earlier, solar power. Or even diesel engines run on soy oil.

    As to the statement farming is dependent on oil, at present it is. It is dependent on it in as much as it is required to run the trucks, tractors, combines, and fertilizer production facilities that farming requires to produce our food. But diesel and gasoline engines will run on other renewable fuels, and if designed to do so I, and the farmers I know, would convert to those pretty quickly if the economics is there.

    I don't know with certainty what happens to the water in the alcohol, but the smell of the exhaust of the Ford F-150 reminded me of the smell of the exhausts at a race of Indy type cars I attended years ago and there was no water that I saw coming from the exhaust. I'll see if I can find the information they provided at the seminar and read over it to see what they had found. I suspect that once the engine got to operating temperature, however, it would evaporate the water and it would go out the exhaust. When it is turned off, however, there would be some small amount left in the cylinders and that might recondense once the engine cooled down. I don't think that would be too great a thing for a nation that put men on the moon to resolve, however. As I recall we had at least one fighter in WW II that had water injection to give it more horsepower when needed, and steam engines operated on steam itself, so they must have been bathed in water vapor.

    The crux of the matter is that this nation must get fed up with OPEC and catering to its members, sending American youth to fight to protect their oil so they can use it to rob and manipulate us, being controlled by them and their whims, and decide to take the bull by the horns. When we do that, look out OPEC. There is little we can't do when we get enough of something, and OPEC members, many educated in this country, know that. If you recall, once they got the price of gas pushed up until we were on the verge of reacting, they suddenly stopped, dropped prices a little, and the sleeping giant that was awakening went back into slumber. And have you noticed we haven't run out of gas in the 30 or so years since that?
This discussion has been closed.