JohnZ

It IS mandatory, on a time schedule. Our brilliant politicans, pandering to the ethanol producers and corn lobby (read ADM), included in the Energy bill two years ago that XXX Gazillion gallons of ethanol must be blended into domestic retail gasoline stocks by 2012 (to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil"), and the current 10% won't meet the mandate in the law. That law (and the regulations stemming from it) are fraught with all manner of unintended consequences, but nobody who voted for the bill read it, understood it, or was smart enough to figure it out.

RatDog

We're in MN, too. My wife drives to the next town where she can get non-ethanol gas for her '98 Turbo Eclipse. She puts her car in storage for 6 months of the year and only puts about 800 miles a year on the car. When we first moved up here, we couldn't even get the car to start after sitting in storage with that 10% stuff in it and, once started, it ran awful. No more problems once she started putting the non-ethanol gas in it. (I told her if they'd make the gas out of 10% rice instead of corn, she'd have no problems )

As you mentioned, by law, non-ethanol is supposed to be limited for use in old cars, etc. However, they sell it to her anyway and never asked any questions.

-- Steve

Mike Culpepper

I just received an email from the Sema Action Network about this. Here are the contents in their entirety:

"URGENT REGULATORY ALERT (UPDATE)

EPA Denies E15 Waiver for Pre-2001 Cars, Permits Use in Newer Cars

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that there is insufficient test data to permit E15 to be used in MY 2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles. The SEMA Action Network (SAN) has consistently voiced concern that ethanol increases water formation which can then create formic acid and corrode metals, plastics and rubber. While the SAN is pleased with the decision that older cars should not be fueled with E15, the association is disappointed that the EPA issued an E15 waiver for 2007 and newer vehicles. The agency is still gathering data for the 2001-2006 vehicles. The EPA’s ruling responds to a request from the ethanol industry to raise the ethanol content in gasoline from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15).

Consumers will not see E15 at the pump any time soon. The EPA must first approve regulations on how gas stations will label their pumps to avoid consumer misfueling. This will take months. Furthermore, there is no obligation that gasoline retailers market the fuel. In fact, some retailers oppose the fuel over concern that they could be held liable if E15 damages a vehicle. The gas stations and distributors may also need to invest in new storage tanks, hoses and other equipment.

The SAN will continue to oppose E15 until there are conclusive scientific findings that demonstrate that it will not harm automobiles of any age as a result of corrosion or other chemical incompatibilities. SEMA represents thousands of companies that market products for these vehicles and, through its SEMA Action Network, millions of enthusiasts who buy and operate these automobiles. Questions/comments may be directed to Steve McDonald at stevem@sema.org."


So, if your car was built before 2001, no ethanol for you.
2001-2006, still undecided.
2007 and up, you might be SOL. If every gas station near your home and/or place of business (wherever you get gas) decides to spend thousands of dollars of their money to invest in new equipment in order to stock ethanol, which most people don't really want.

Personally I don't see much difference. Here in Maryland we've been getting "oxygenated" gas (blended with ethanol up to 10% max) in the winter months for several years. Hasn't seemed to make a difference and yes, I put it in the '67 - which does has a new fuel system though - except maybe for the tank. I didn't replace it. I can't say about the previous owner, but as I believe he's related to Bubba, I don't think he would have.

kenmo

It is my fear the demise of our hobby will be the Al Gore worshiping global warming alarmists crowd...

Sxrxrnr

The eco-nuts and their spawn think nothing of the consequences of their ignorance. Yea, no nuclear,,,,which by the way has not killed a single American soul,,,can't say that for coal miners and the millions who suffer from health problems because of burning coal not to mention the tons of radioactivity placed in our atmosphere each year from burn coal,,,,,or the fact that we send hundreds of billions annually to those who hate us so that we can acquire and use oil until we await our recycled french oil and solar technologies to mature to where they can provide more than 2 percent of our national energy requirements. Current calculations suggest that by 2020 with an extremely aggressive "green" campaign and very expensive (read hundreds of billions of dollars) yet to be invented technologies that we will be at 4 percent.

And now we can spend a few thousands on our old cars to replace fuel systems,,"camshafts?" while we decrease our fuel economy and performance so that a bunch of farmers can rid themselves of the excess corn that they've not figured what else to do with it,,,,except to encourage us to drink more sodas with High Fructose Corn Syrup which leads directly to billions of dollars in excess health costs because of the effect that this substance has on so called IBS, obesity, diabetes, and assorted cardiovascular problems.

Yes its the old law of unintended consequences, but what can one expect from those who cannot tell us what natural phenomenon again leads to the 24 hour cycle of night and day. And now they are all scientists setting the direction of our country and its economy for generations to come.

xiaoman

mini rant like frankie
only a finite amount of oil out there and as we use more of it you can bet the price will rise...a few years ago when gas was again (remember the 70s) astronomically high we all changed our driving habits...now that its a little lower our memories have lapsed.
there will be a day when we can no longer get the gas we need, its only a matter of time...not a question of more drilling as it just prolongs the inevitable. i just wish we would have been looking for alternatives sooner and that driving was not linked to the food chain.
the irony is that for the collector car market , we as a whole probably contribute far less pollution when driving our classics than the general population.
everything changes and our hobby will either evolve or go the way of the dinosaur. don't know what the answer is , if i did i'd have someone helping me restore my car rather than wrenching on it myself in the driveway!
going to take a drive while i can still fill-up.jm2c, xiaoman

my58

Sxrxnr for President

At least for Govenor of CA!

magicv8

I always use 10% ethanol (however many years it's been at the pumps) and have no problems with the fuel system. The inside of my tank looks like new.

I do realize ethanol production from corn is probably not an energy gain for the country, but IMO the use of ethanol should be something to be decided in political forums and at the polls. I hope the "proposition" people in California have fun with it.

ps374

As long as Mecedes, BMW,& Audi sell cars in America there will be high octane fuel at the pumps. Most of these cars cant run without it without damaging the engines.

rgs

It is absolutely amazing how much mis information is floating around this thread. Id like to clear up one mis-conception. No farmer is getting any subsidies for raising corn. Subsidies only kick in if the price of a subsidized comodity falls below a pre-determined threshhold. That threshold for corn hasn't been hit for many years. Farmers don't see any difference whether their comodity goes to a cattle feed lot or an ethanol plant.

Something that everyone should be aware of. We export 40% of our corn crop and give most of that away. Why shouldn't we start using it for our own use instead?

stingrayl76

If you are driving an old Corvette or any other old, high performance vehicle, it becomes a problem at anything over 0% ethanol.

Sxrxrnr

Corn subsidy stats:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03...nol-meat-hfcs/

If a commodity becomes in short supply because of demand, the price rises. If a use for a product is artificially created (HFCS, Ethanol ) whether it is of any social redeeming value or not, the demand is increased driving up the price. Not that long ago, corn hit over 5 dollars a bushel from a norm of about 2 to 3 dollars. Most of this artificial demand was created by the governments insistence that gasoline be "enhanced" with ethanol. So not only did the price get forced up, but the government also paid billions of dollars at about 50 cents a gallon to subsidize ethanol as a motor fuel. On its own, it is not even close to price competitive with straight up gasoline. Just as home solar heating systems are not even close to being competitive with other forms of energy for your home or industry without massive government subsidies. Only one guess allowed for who gets to pay for this!

How long can we or be willing to pay for this foolhardiness is anyone's guess. I would suppose as long as votes can be purchased by doing so.

rgs

Thank you for posting the link. If you read it as I did, you saw also that the article points out that those subsidies did not go to the farmers but middlemen and processors. Thank you for confirming my one and only point that the farmers are not getting the subsidies.

Stewart Allison

I want a Z06 C6 real bad ! I dribble when people talk about them. I wish they made them in right hand drive. Stewy

Stewart Allison

When I was touring your great nation a few months ago I was astonished at how many corn fields there were. By the time I got from North to south I was totally flabbergasted at the amount of corn that is grown ! I was thinking you guys must eat corn for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But since then I have looked into it and now realise your entire world revolves around corn ! Christ even you catchup has corn in it ? HHhhmm Stewy

RatDog

When we first moved up to this small farming community a few years ago, I was a quite the rube about corn farming. Seeing thousands thousands of acres of corn everywhere l looked, I thought to myself that there's no way this nation can consume that much corn. My farmer friend educated me that none of that corn that I'm seeing around here is going to end up as Niblets on my dinner table. In addition to its use in an endless variety of other edible products, a huge amount of it is used to feed livestock. And, apparently, only a small amount is destined for gas tanks.

You're right, if you don't live around it, you can't appreciate how much of it there really is or give much thought about it being anything other than something served next to your pork chops.

As far as corn prices, my neighbor owns farmland in ND that he leases to corn growers. He just got his payment from this year's crop and is grinning from ear-to-ear .

-- Steve

raypilot65

Alot of good points made in this thread, however the truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. Don't forget, most of us drive our classics very few miles per year, so Corvettes and Ethanol is not the discussion, our everyday cars are. The fact remains that we will run out of oil at some point. The poster who talked about natural gas has a point. Much more abundant than oil. Let's say we found an alternative to oil. Will China go along with us and reduce their usage? Don't think so. This is not a problem that is going to be solved within our borders. As you can see from this thread, people want what they want, and don't care much about anyone else. People producing corn are happy, people who hate ethanol and the Government forcing it down their throats are not. People hate Jimmy Carter for stopping Nuclear Plants, people who live near them live in fear. People want to build more jails until you tell them it's going to be a quarter mile from their house. I hate anything political on this forum. I get enough of this crap everyday of my life. Make me supreme ruler of the Universe and I'll fix everything. Oh yeah, no complaints if you don't like it when build something next to your million dollar home.

mscaggs

I vote to close this thread and get on to something a little more happy. We can all find something to gripe about I guess. Me, I'm just blessed to own a C2 in the first place...

rgs

For those of you interested in verifiable statistics, here are a few:

Average price of a bushel of corn in 1960: $1.03
Average price of a barrel of crude oil in 1960: $2.91

Average price of a bushel of corn in 2010 (as of July); $3.48
Average price of a barrel of crude oil in 2010 (as of July): $70.67

Between 1960 and 2010, the average price of a bushel of corn has risen 238%. During this same time period, the average price of a barrel of crude oil has risen 2329%.

In 1975, the median houshold income in the US was $11,800. It rose to $49,777 in 2009. That is an average increase of 9.4%/year. If we use the same rate from 1975 to 2009 and project it over the period of 1960 to 2010, we get an increase in medial household income of 473%.

In comparison to the average household income, the price of corn has historically gone down while the price of oil has historically gone up.

References
Historical Corn Prices
Historical Crude Oil Prices
Historical Median Household Income

amtronic1

The WSJ has become a Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Not even worth lining the birdcage with it now.