And if you are going on a long trip you have the cheaper option anyway!!!

According to some of that INFO JoeC5 offered up the American made stuff from corn isn't sufficient, and their having to mix the Brazilian sugar cane in. And there is the Australian stuff adding into the mix, as well. I think E85 is a global thing and will grow as such.

I saw a newer Flexfuel Ford F150, and Yep, the game seems to be up.

 

idk about all the additives. i am from Iowa. corn is very common and so is ethanol plants. for our shop "race car" i go to the local ethanol plant and get ethanol form them. i take them a 300 gallon container with 45 gallons of good 91 in it and they fill it up with straight ethanol. making it e85.

 

The heart of the issue is how both the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are calculating carbon emissions for corn-based ethanol and Brazilian sugar ethanol. Under both the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the California Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS), the carbon footprint of Brazilian based sugar ethanol is deemed far superior to corn-based ethanol. This results in a growing incentive for imports of ethanol from Brazil to meet increasingly aggressive carbon standards. At the same time, a struggling Brazilian ethanol industry cannot meet its own domestic demand. As such, Brazilian ethanol producers are finding it more valuable to export their product to America (and the carbon emissions that go with ocean transport) and import growing volumes of U.S. ethanol (and the same carbon emissions).

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/ener...nol-and-brazil

 

This junk is being force fed down our throats by big brother and it's a friggin travesty of justice! You like it,you buy it but don't force people out here to stick this stuff in our cars if we choose not to..oh wait,we don't have the luxury of that particular choice!

 

I have run e85 in my last 2 vettes. Nearly 13:1 compression and soon bumping to 14+:1. Huge tourque gains. Can't beat that! Too many people complaining about a good thing!

 

And FLEXfuel might mean they don't have to freaking use it, or even own it. That forementioned PIC might have them covered!

 

I'm guessing turbos would work better with the AFM. They seem to really be on it so if they really want to sell cars!

 

Um... Who's forcing you to buy and use E85? As far as I know, it's the least popular option. And as far as I know it is STILL an "option". So why are you complaining about a supposed "big brother" forcing it on you?

Am I missing the point of your post somewhere?

 

In my case I strongly believe that E10 is being forced down my throat. It's getting very difficult to find 100% pure gas any more, thanks to those that think ethanol is the answer(which it is not).

It's not strictly about E85, but about ethanol being added to our gas.

But E10 is not enough to satisfy them. The idiots want to force us to use E20.

 

Exactly what do you have against E10?

The only down side to it is a very minor reduction in economy.

The positives are that your engine stays cleaner, fuel injection system stays cleaner, and the exhaust is cleaner. In reality it's good for maintenance.

It, unfortunately, doesn't affect the octane enough to make a noticeable difference, but at a micro-scale you do gain a little octane from E10 over E0.

 

Absolutely,m totally agree!

 

I ask you the same question as I asked JoesC5, then.

 

It's a formula created totally by the global warming crowd. Baseless, and politically driven. It reduces mileage and has created engine problems. We don't need something else to drive up costs, cut supply's of any kind of food sources even if they they may not be consumable. It's a contrived substance that just creates a cottage industry with almost 100% downside. Will it give more HP? Maybe, so what. We can conserve oil, just by refining the way we have for many years.

I'll stay with better gas mileage, fewer engine problems and more food sources and less consumption of oil. We don't need another government hand out to a few constituents for votes or to try to validate a fringe left wing scientific community that has been dis-proven. I don't and never will support government engineering.

 

You don't gain any octane E10 vs E0. I pull up to the pump and it says E10 and is 91 octane. I drive across the street and pull up to the pump and it says no ethanol and is also 91 octane.

The pipe line ships the octane that the retailer wants. For my location, if a retailer wants 87 octane E10 he is shipped 85 octane pure gas to the local terminal via the pipe line and the local terminal adds 10% ethanol and the delivery truck then delivers that E10 to the retailer and it is 87 octane.

If the retailer wants E0 87 octane pure gas, the pipeline ships 87 octane gasoline to the terminal and that 87 octane pure gas is then trucked to the retailer.

You can argue that the 10% ethanol adds 2 octane points to the 85 octane gasoline, which is does, but the gasoline that goes into your car is 87 octane whether it is pure gas or E10.

E10 doesn't mean a hill of beans as for keeping the engine clean vs E0. There are additives added to the gasoline that takes care of that. The 93 Octane pure gas(Conoco Top Tier) that goes into my Z06 is cleaner than the E10 going into a car from Bubba's bait shop and convenience store that sells some off brand gas that barely meets the minimum spec as far as additives added that are required by the government.

Cliff notes: the 93 octane E0 that I buy has the same octane as 93 E10 that you buy, and that 93 octane E0 keeps my fuel system and engine just as clean as any E10 out there.

PS- Even though I buy my 93 octane pure gas for my Z06 from a Conoco station, I buy 91 octane pure gas at HyVee for my Mercedes, my 56 Vette and my 64 Vette and also for my riding lawnmower. The only time E10 goes into one of my cars is if I'm on the road and the government has forced the stations along my route to sell E10.

if I'm going to start my car and then clamp my mouth over the exhaust pipe, does it really matter how clean it is. Otherwise, the exhaust coming from my tailpipe has to meet the same emission regulations whether it is E10 or E0.

 

Again,

 

OK... First off, that "global warming crowd" is not just a crowd, it's > 99.9% of scientists in the world covering ALL forms of sciences and it's the VAST majority of people on this planet. Less than 30% of the United States doesn't accept that "climate change" is real. Just wanted to bring that to light. And it's ONLY the U.S.A. that has people that don't accept it. All other 1st world countries know better.

Secondly, in no case has ANY vehicle made since 1990 been damaged by E10. There's not a single documented case of this anywhere. The mere thought that you're buying into that is somewhat amusing (and scary). Think about it... I live in California where we've had E-blends for nearly 30 years. And nobody in California with vehicles made during or after 1990 is having E-blend troubles. Nobody.

And finally, ALL E-blends we have here are either made from imported Ethanol (which means it doesn't affect our food crops) or made from corn product that was going to live-stock feed and the bi-product of making Ethanol from that corn was in-fact live stock feed still. It doesn't affect our food source.

Keep in mind that corn is subsidized by the government.

Fair enough, about the octane.

However, we have additives in our E-blends here too. Meaning that our fuel actually DOES clean the engine better. But more importantly, it keeps debris out of the fuel lines better. Fuel injection cleaners are actually alcohol based. (Did you know that?)

One of the reasons why every E85-run engine has looked cleaner during a tear down vs. it's E0 counterparts. This is an undeniable fact.

And for both of you, I want to you to realize something BIG... Los Angeles, the city I live in, used to have a thick brown layer of nasty smog you could see over the skyline about 25 years ago. I remember seeing it all the time as a kid. Even 20 years ago it wasn't that great. But today, even though there is still some smog that is visible, it's NOTHING like it used to be. The air isn't as hard to breath. But keep in mind we have more cars and less public transportation than any other metropolis.

So when you say the government is "forcing" you to use cleaner burning fuels, it's for a reason that matters. Even if you don't accept that climate change is real (though, I'm not sure how you can argue with that many scientists), you can at least accept the visual confirmation that you're breathing in less cancer-causing pollutants. Then again, you might be 70 years old and not have kids or grandkids you want to survive longer than you.

 

Politics! I heard yesterday they may end up being our downfall! Our country argues too much so we aren't going in a straight enough direction.

Flexfuel is NOT arguable! Using ethanol is on some distant forum where performance isn't a prerequisite.

 

Has anybody heard any more news since the bash on whether C7 will or will not be flex fuel?

Last I seem to recall is the Bash info indicating it won't be factory offered as a flex fuel/E85 vehicle.

That struck me as odd, as I figured GM would offer it as a flex fuel vehicle, since the refiners are already maxed out against the blend wall on ethanol, yet the regulations mandate even more ethanol be produced and blended. Thus, the recent brah over E15 and E20. Got to have some place to put the mandated ethanol, cuz the blend wall is basically here for E10.

Which is why I just assumed GM would make the C7 flex/E85 capable, if for no other reason than to unequivocally avoid any issues with E15/E20.

So, any more confirm out of GM on flex fuel or not?

 

It's not politics. It's science. And as we've very well seen, politics and science don't mix. There's a guy on the government's science committee that believes the universe is 10,000 years old... SERIOUSLY! ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE!!!

Sorry, but the climate change situation is not a hoax and it's not a matter of politics. It's matter of scientific fact and the only part politics has in it is when and how we're going to do something about it. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that are willing to believe it's a hoax because that's the more convenient answer. It's easier to not accept the truth and not give up anything than to bite the bullet and make big sacrifices. That's not politics either. That's common sense.

 

I did wonder about the bash questions, but, no one had stepped up?

EPA!