Announcement

**Pat Dilling** · 06-21-2013, 08:25 AM

There are many reasons that burning food in our vehicles and other energy producing devices is a bad idea. The damage it causes to older vehicles is just one of them. Thanks for sharing this Jeff.

**JDP** · 06-21-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Pat Dilling View Post

There a many reasons that burning food in our vehicles and other energy producing devices is a bad idea. The damage it causes to older vehicles is just one of them. Thanks for sharing this Jeff.

Once the energy policy act of 2005 starting giving corn farmers a nice income, few have the balls to point out that it not a great idea. SEMA is on the right track, but it'll be a tough fight. One stupid provision deals with blended pumps. You have to buy a minimum of 4 gallons of fuel to flush the hose of the chosen fuel. Try that on your motorcycle.

Autoblog Sitemap

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/08/13/epa-requiring-4-gallon-minimum-purchase-of-e15-fuel/

**JBOYLE** · 06-21-2013, 04:51 PM

Save your breath, they're not going to listen to us. It will be another thing Washington forces upon us....logical or not.

**jts359** · 06-21-2013, 05:46 PM

Along with Studebakers I have a boat , Mercrusier is one of the larger engines producers of inboard engines. About a year ago Mercrusier did a report on E-!5 , In their report they stated E-15 should not be considered a motor fuel and would not recommend it for any 4 cycle engine they produced in the past or currently

**JimC** · 06-21-2013, 09:03 PM

The joy of living in the Midwest is that this stuff is always last to be implemented here. Which is also ironic, because we grow most of the corn that makes this garbage. But at least for the time being, the majority of gas stations in our part of the world still sell gas without ethanol at all. It's a wonderful thing.

**Gunslinger** · 06-22-2013, 04:31 AM

The govt cannot backtrack...it cannot be seen as being wrong. It's simply part of the larger agenda to accumulate authority for everyone's own good...at least how it's thought of. EPA has to regulate or it isn't seen as doing its job...and to continue to receive an ever increasing piece of the funding pie. In govt, funding is power...the power increases or diminishes as funding increases or diminishes. Bureaucracies thrive on power and will argue for more.

Hobbyists such as old car owners and clubs are an annoyance to the govt. I believe the bureaucrats would rather we all simply go away and our cars be scrapped so we don't have to be dealt with.

**DEEPNHOCK** · 06-22-2013, 05:22 AM

As a view from a different perspective.....

Some of us (most of you) see this as an unwanted, and unneeded, change in a particular technology.
That's ok.. It's a valid viewpoint (and one that I share...about 85% of)...

But....
I also see it as just a technology speed bump.
I'll explain...

The technology is changing. Changing due to economics (fossil oil supply).
Changing due to corporate economics (ability to cut whiskey and charge the same price).
Changing due to mandates by authorities (Ethanol producer subsidies guaranteed by mandated use of ethanol cut gasoline).

So, the technology is changing, and some of us, on behalf of our aged machinery, don't want to change.
So that segment organizes (AACA, SEMA, etc..), and lobbies our bureaucrats to slow down, or stop the change.

Well, that's not going to happen. Time marches on. Fuel costs will not drop appreciably.
But... We 'could' use technology to our advantage.
We 'could' upgrade our equipment to use this crap cut liquor our engines crave.
Rebuild your carb with E-15 rated gaskets, needles, and seats. Upgrade your fuel pump.
Add the schmoo elixir de-jour, and keep on trucking.

I use Brazil as an example. They have gone way, Way past what our country has done as far as ethanol goes.
They (their gov't) subsidized their entire country for the sugar cane/ethanol process.
Then they mandated pure ethanol car manufacturing.
The whole country is on this program, and they do not have the fossil fuel noose around their necks near as bad as we do.
The only people caught in the mix are those with pre-ethanol technology cars and trucks.
(And it is not the hobbyist caught in that situation in Brazil...it is the poorest segment...that can afford a car...barely)

Personally, I have no qualms with ethanol.
My stubborn belief is.. I would rather be able to grow my fuel annually, rather than have a 15 million year cycle.
I try not to compare the macro-economics of comparing cost/efficiency of gasoline vs ethanol.
Just looking at the next...thousand years....
Fossil oil will someday be looked at like whale oil is looked at today.
Nice stuff that smells funny. Terrible expensive, and not obtained without great expense to all concerned.

I will continue to run my fossil based stuff, using my fossil based lifestyle, as long as I can.
But I won't spend the rest of my life stomping my feet and wringing my hands about it.
Sorry for the long reply....
Jeff

**Spannerbird** · 06-22-2013, 06:53 AM

Jeff, I agree with ya here and see the points.

I don't know what it is about here, but maybe just the idea that people can't get past of not wanting change. I know in many countries people are using diesel in their vehicles because the cost of unleaded is cost prohibitive to use on a daily basis. People in the US are stuck in the 70s diesel paradigm where they think they stink, loud, slow, expensive, etc. Diesel now is just about opposite of all those. But of course it's difficult to change mass public opinion over night. Most people won't do anything until their wallets cry that they can't afford that lifestyle any longer. So now they're paying much more for the ability to do what they've always done.

Over time, unless you own around 6 vehicles and don't make a large amount of money (subjective really), Ethanol conversion really isn't that terribly difficult. I've heard the worst is to I think chrome your fuel tank or something. Rebuilding a carburatour is usually much easier.

What I see happening is a small amount of the older population of older car owners will convert to the new standards, and us younger people will do it quickly. With all this talk about ethanol, it's difficult currently to me to see if it's whining coming from a certain segment, or something that's inevitable.

**spokejr** · 06-22-2013, 08:59 PM

Jeff & Arielle, I think you both are missing something here. Unless the engine is able to change the fuel to air ratio to maintain stoichrometric, it is unrealistic to use as the higher levels of ethenol become un-burnable. Flex fuel vehicles can run 0-85%, most others with fuel injection can run 0-10 and even 15%. Carburetored engines really don't like 10% but run acceptably well, just rather lean.

For further thought, add in that economically speaking, ethanol is unsupportable, please see the following;

404

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23303&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Cheers,

Ken

**DEEPNHOCK** · 06-23-2013, 03:33 AM

I like your comment 'economically speaking'....
What is 'unsupportable'?
Look at what fossil fuel has done to our economy in the last 50 years?
And we have only developed that technology for the last 120 years.

I did not miss what you are talking about, and it was part of my reply.
My point was that we are in a changing world. The technology is being developed to allow the use of ethanol based fuels.
But the fossil based fuel segment is running into the limits of what can be done/changed, and still run the machinery.
The vintage car industry/hobby is struggling with the burdonesome mandates put on by government.
Sure, an engineer will tell you an old engine will hate ethanol. An engineer will also tell you a bumblebee can't fly.
I am just as passionate about the preservation of the hobby as the next guy.
I am just not going to jump on the bandwagon to kill all alternative fuel and energy sources.
Let's develop the technology, and not condemn it.
Powerful forces at play to keep us locked into the fossil fuel world, for sure.
The technical arguments are real....if the equipment stays the same.
I know I don't have the answer.
Jeff

Originally posted by spokejr View Post

Jeff & Arielle, I think you both are missing something here. Unless the engine is able to change the fuel to air ratio to maintain stoichrometric, it is unrealistic to use as the higher levels of ethenol become un-burnable. Flex fuel vehicles can run 0-85%, most others with fuel injection can run 0-10 and even 15%. Carburetored engines really don't like 10% but run acceptably well, just rather lean.

For further thought, add in that economically speaking, ethanol is unsupportable, please see the following;

404

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23303&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Cheers,

Ken

**bezhawk** · 06-23-2013, 04:48 AM

I'm not concerned with the technical aspects of burning ethanol....it's the subsudies and food being used to fuel transportation that tips my trigger.

Bio-fuel from alge is the future.

**DEEPNHOCK** · 06-23-2013, 05:35 AM

Yeppers...
But it is hard to tax algae, and there is no algae growers lobby with lobby $$ courting to our elected officials for subsidies.
Algae growers...UNITE!

Originally posted by bezhawk View Post

I'm not concerned with the technical aspects of burning ethanol....it's the subsudies and food being used to fuel transportation that tips my trigger.

Bio-fuel from alge is the future.

**sweetolbob** · 06-23-2013, 06:12 AM

Posted by DEEPNHOCK

Let's develop the technology, and not condemn it.

Adding 5% more ETOH to gasoline is not "technology". I certainly agree with the premise that we should be developing the next generation technology and could be with the amount of dollars that we are p!ssing away on sham efforts to keep too many factors at bay.

When we development a plan to move forward that has a focus and concerted effort then I'll jump on the wagon and support same.

In the meantime, Don't accuse me of being a negative presence by questioning nor criticizing efforts that put more economic burden on the system than they return. The scientist in my soul just screams at these efforts.

My one question is "What is the meaning of the comment on the effect of fossil fuels on our economy over the last 50 years?" From a positive standpoint they are only the building blocks to our Automotive, Chemical and Plastics industries and can only be viewed by me in that light.

Any negative would suggest that we can still light our caves and hovels with whale oil.

Bob

**DEEPNHOCK** · 06-23-2013, 07:22 AM

Well, it is technical from a certain point of view.... Not a chemist's point of view, though.
I don't disagree with you there, hence the 'cutting the whiskey' comment from the start..
I also agree that the massive growth of out technology was, and is fueled a lot by fossil fuels.
We would still be in caves if we hadn't learned to burn stuff.
But we need to recognize that the massive and sudden (in human terms) of growth are not without peril, and they well might not be sustainable.
Not sustainable as in continued use of fossil fuels, but in the technological growth curve.
Medicine is facing a troubled future as a lot of the wonderful drugs invented in the last 100 years are not working as well as they thought, or the problems they solved have mutated into something worse.
I feel the same might be said for the social/technical growth in the future.
Once the supply of fossil fuel really does dwindle (think long term), then the technological growth curve might flatten out.
And our societies will rearrange themselves to survive.
You comment about industry is compelling, and true...for us right now.
We would be worse off without all of this having happened.
But think about this.
A lot of this has happened because we happen to live in a superb place where raw materials, manpower, and the freedom to persue the technology has been all in one place.
That is not true all over the world.
And our situation is not without peril.
People from outside our country tried to crush our way of life before, from the outside, and they were deterred.
Did they go away? No.....
They just changed tacts. They tapped into the greed that freedom brings, and they have slowly infiltrated our society, and our government.
Mix the technology into this, and you can see where the ethanol starts getting mixed in to the politics, and hence the negative aspects come out later on.
Sometimes too late.
Like Kudzu, killer bee's, Asian carp, etc.

I'm not trying to start anything... Just tossing out supplemental info that a lot of people won't, or don't want to look at.
The whole article in this thread was an activist article about the negative aspects of a political decision.
The whole point of the discussion is not to see just the one side your/our hobby wants to see.
That's all. Nuthing accusitorial or sinister about it.
Jeff

Originally posted by sweetolbob View Post

Adding 5% more ETOH to gasoline is not "technology". I certainly agree with the premise that we should be developing the next generation technology and could be with the amount of dollars that we are p!ssing away on sham efforts to keep too many factors at bay.

When we development a plan to move forward that has a focus and concerted effort then I'll jump on the wagon and support same.

In the meantime, Don't accuse me of being a negative presence by questioning nor criticizing efforts that put more economic burden on the system than they return. The scientist in my soul just screams at these efforts.

My one question is "What is the meaning of the comment on the effect of fossil fuels on our economy over the last 50 years?" From a positive standpoint they are only the building blocks to our Automotive, Chemical and Plastics industries and can only be viewed by me in that light.

Any negative would suggest that we can still light our caves and hovels with whale oil.

Bob

Announcement

SEMA Speaks Out Against E15 Fuel (Link)

SEMA Speaks Out Against E15 Fuel (Link)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment