

More ethanol coming to pumps near you
New blend will work in any vehicle built back to 2001








It basically hurts everyone… 




Comments     Threshold


By BioHazardous on 3/14/2011 12:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
So when we only get about 300 gallons per acre of corn, we figure it's such a winning proposition that we should require more ethanol to be added to gas? This almost makes sense.

RE: Awesome
By Samus on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 12:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
The bigger problem is that the automakers have big concerns over the increased ethanol and its effect on the fuel system. Also, the E15 absorbs water more easily, so your gas will go bad faster. All a car needs for calibrating the fuel mixture is a composition sensor that detects how much ethanol is in the fuel and the tuning parameters for it. This is the easy part.

Don't feel bad, though, just more pork for the corn farmers.

RE: Awesome
By bah12 on 3/14/2011 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
I know screw those bently driving yuppies, I hate it when I see all these douchebag farmers acting like their sH*t don't stink. /sarcasm

Seriously of all the corrupt professions in the US, I don't rank the "pork" ridden farmers in my list of concerns. Now all the Warren Buffets of the world that trade in large volumes of commodities such as corn, well that would be a proper group to be trimming the "pork" from.

RE: Awesome
By zinfamous on 3/14/2011 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, I don't think you get it. Corn farmers grow the corn simply because they are paid to do it--not from selling the corn itself--because it is an unprofitable crop--but because the Feds pay them to do it.

"pork-ridden" is also completely unfair. These guys aren't rolling in cash by growing corn, they are living comfortably sure, but many of the Iowa growers seem to think the whole affair is ridiculous, and would very well be off growing something worth-while, if the Feds didn't pay them to grow non-consumable items (some 80% of the corn now grown in this country is unpalatable--it is grown for animal feed and now ethanol production).

Buffet is not your boogeyman, and neither are the farmers.

RE: Awesome
By bah12 on 3/14/2011 2:53:05 PM , Rating: 3
Hence the /sarcasm tag. The OP was the one who was chastising the "pork" for these farmers. Like you said, and I agree, I hardly think the corn farmer is the source of any corruption/controversy.

RE: Awesome
By wookie1 on 3/14/2011 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
You say that "pork-ridden" is unfair, yet bemoan the effects of the pork-fest in the same paragraph! I'm not saying that family farmers are rolling in dough. As you say, they're being paid to grow non-consumable crops instead of something useful for food but rather for this ethanol debacle. So, we waste tax money to pay them to grow ethanol crops that really don't benefit anyone, rather than just growing food. Also, remember that the big corporate farms get subsidized as well, not just the family farm.

RE: Awesome
By mindless1 on 3/15/2011 2:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
If the farmers choose to do it they are to blame. Like welfare, a person can choose not to take the handout, to either grow that "worth-while" crop instead, or find another line of work.

The government does not put a gun to their heads and force them to grow corn! They are leeches.

RE: Awesome
By jah1subs on 3/14/2011 4:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Above 10% ethanol, I worry at what strength of ethanol, below E85 (85% Ethanol), should one be driving a flex fuel system with no rubber and other parts that can be damaged by the ethanol.

RE: Awesome
By Iaiken on 3/14/2011 1:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently you've never seen this study:

The overall results of the program were not conclusive insofar as no clear trends in the overall performance of all equipment could be established. New and used equipment such as shear valves, flow limiters, submersible turbine pumps, and hoses generally performed well. Some new and used equipment demonstrated a reduced level of safety or performance, or both, during either long-term exposure or performance tests. Dispenser meter/manifold/valve assemblies in particular demonstrated largely noncompliant results. Nozzles, breakaways, and swivels, both new and used, experienced noncompliant results during performance testing. Responses of nonmetals, primarily gaskets and seals, were involved with these noncompliances.

There is a reason why Germans boycotted 91 octane fuel that was forced upon them by their government. BMW had previously tested 91 with 10% and 15% ethanol and ruled it in non-compliance with your warranty because of the extensive damage that it could do to the aluminum valve train, high pressure fuel pumps and injector mixers. If you took your car in for any of the above problems, BMW/MINI will test your fuel and anything above 5% ethanol is non-compliant and voids your warranty because both the warranty and owners manual states specifically that you must use 91 octane with 0% ethanol.

For cars that are dialed in for ethanol and do not use aluminum valve trains/manifolds or heated injector mixers, or high pressure fuel pumps that were not designed to deal with the increased density that water so absorbed by the ethanol causes, or if your classic car doesn't have a fully sealed gas tank.

No thanks! Owners of such cars need to get together and throw a class action against the EPA to prevent them from mandating ethanol in 91 octane. At the very least, consumers should have a choice and companies should not be held liable for designs predating the addition of ethanol being adversely affected by its use.

RE: Awesome
Ill understood.


76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
B. 116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline




RE: Awesome

RE: Awesome
civic? owners manual says 2004 or newer.




RE: Awesome
up to 10% ethanol content







RE: Awesome
If you are interested in reading more see this:


RE: Awesome
By tviceman on 3/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome
By YashBudini on 3/14/11, Rating: 0
