E15
05-21-2012, 03:29 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
E15
"With Sales Imminent, Ethanol Blend’s Impact on Engine Durability Remains Contentious" Just finished reading this article from the Automoibile Section in the N.Y. Times. Any forum members concerned about E15 gasoline that might be appearing very soon?
05-21-2012, 03:57 PM
#2
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2012
Location: Anger Island
Posts: 45,951
Received 3,291 Likes
on
1,400 Posts
St. Jude Donor '12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
That's been the "Winter blend" gas out here for years. Never had a problem.
Yes, I drive mine year round unless the weather is really bad.
Yes, I drive mine year round unless the weather is really bad.
05-21-2012, 04:08 PM
#3
Team Owner
Yes, it's been discussed here before. Do you suggest we try to do anything about it, or do you think our lawmakers are going to allow it to happen because that's the way they are?
05-21-2012, 04:39 PM
#4
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,267
Received 5,458 Likes
on
2,274 Posts
FYI, this is a link to the engine durability study that came out this week showing damage to late model engines running on E20 and E15.
http://www.crcao.com/reports/recents...l%20Report.pdf
http://www.crcao.com/reports/recents...l%20Report.pdf
05-21-2012, 04:53 PM
#5
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2012
Location: Anger Island
Posts: 45,951
Received 3,291 Likes
on
1,400 Posts
St. Jude Donor '12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
Now if there was a way to get the octane in premium gas here to be the same as the rest of the country I'm all for it.
05-21-2012, 04:59 PM
#7
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,131
Received 8,960 Likes
on
5,346 Posts
That is a large report so I just quickly scanned it for flaws. There is one glaring issue on the surface, that might not mean anything if I spent more time reading it. However, three vehicles failed the test when using E20 and subsequently failed the test when using E15. The OEM manufacturers of those vehicles said the failures were due to pitting, etc on the valves. The study doesn't seem to address what would have happened if they had been tested on E15 first. Obviously, the E15 failures shouldn't have been counted since there is no way leakage past a valve due to pitting gets better just because you change the fuel you are using. The test also didn't address the prevalent fuel mix being used nowadays which is E10. It is almost impossible to find E0 since E10 is used as a replacement for MTBE which although cleaning the air caused water pollution.
Bill
Bill
05-21-2012, 05:20 PM
#8
Racer
Thread Starter
05-21-2012, 05:23 PM
#9
Melting Slicks
05-21-2012, 05:51 PM
#11
Team Owner
05-21-2012, 05:52 PM
#12
Drifting
It’s not generally understood that for cars built since closed loop fuel controls with O2 sensors became mandatory in the early 1990’s, oxygenates such as MTBE and ethanol have no smog-related emissions benefits. On cars built before then, oxygenates did reduce smog-type emissions because they made carburetor-equipped cars run leaner, which reduced smog-type emissions by 10-15%. But since very few pre-1990 cars are still on the road, that benefit no longer applies.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
05-21-2012, 05:55 PM
#13
Team Owner
That is a large report so I just quickly scanned it for flaws. There is one glaring issue on the surface, that might not mean anything if I spent more time reading it. However, three vehicles failed the test when using E20 and subsequently failed the test when using E15. The OEM manufacturers of those vehicles said the failures were due to pitting, etc on the valves. The study doesn't seem to address what would have happened if they had been tested on E15 first. Obviously, the E15 failures shouldn't have been counted since there is no way leakage past a valve due to pitting gets better just because you change the fuel you are using. The test also didn't address the prevalent fuel mix being used nowadays which is E10. It is almost impossible to find E0 since E10 is used as a replacement for MTBE which although cleaning the air caused water pollution.
Bill
Bill
I pay the same per gallon for E0 91 octane as the stations charge for E10 91 octane, and pay a 10 cent/gallon premium for E0 93 octane.
05-21-2012, 05:59 PM
#14
Team Owner
It’s not generally understood that for cars built since closed loop fuel controls with O2 sensors became mandatory in the early 1990’s, oxygenates such as MTBE and ethanol have no smog-related emissions benefits. On cars built before then, oxygenates did reduce smog-type emissions because they made carburetor-equipped cars run leaner, which reduced smog-type emissions by 10-15%. But since very few pre-1990 cars are still on the road, that benefit no longer applies.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
05-21-2012, 06:13 PM
#15
Melting Slicks
Sadly, we deserve the politicians we elect . . .
05-21-2012, 08:15 PM
#17
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,267
Received 5,458 Likes
on
2,274 Posts
It’s not generally understood that for cars built since closed loop fuel controls with O2 sensors became mandatory in the early 1990’s, oxygenates such as MTBE and ethanol have no smog-related emissions benefits. On cars built before then, oxygenates did reduce smog-type emissions because they made carburetor-equipped cars run leaner, which reduced smog-type emissions by 10-15%. But since very few pre-1990 cars are still on the road, that benefit no longer applies.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
A second clean air benefit is alleged to be reduction of CO2 because growing the corn supposedly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making ethanol “greenhouse gas friendly”. But that’s silly, because if corn were not planted in the fields, something else would be growing there, which would be absorbing the CO2. It’s thus very difficult for a non-idiot to see a greenhouse gas benefit.
So the only current logic for using ethanol is to reduce oil imports, and corn-based ethanol is very inefficient at doing that. It takes nearly as much energy to plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn as the corn produces in ethanol. Future routes to ethanol such as sorghum may be better in that regard, but they are not yet in practice. The much-touted Brazil sugar cane experience requires both the Brazil tropical climate, plus low cost Brazil labor to tend the sugar cane, so it is not generally applicable.
That all said, politicians are slowly coming to their senses. They have cancelled most of the ethanol subsidies. While they have allowed limited E15 manufacture, pumps must be clearly labeled “not for pre-2000 cars” (because of corrosion issues in fuel systems before that date), so oil companies are not going to market them widely. Interestingly, E15 requires a vapor pressure waiver from 7psi to 9psi, which actually means that in a modern (post 1990) car, emissions from E15 will be higher, not lower. So keep the faith. Politicians respond to lobbying money, but the ethanol lobby may have seen its peak and be in decline. If/when sorghum or other ethanol routes actually make sense, perhaps they can make a comeback. But at least for now, subsidies are too tough on the budget for any of them to support. And without subsidies or a breakthrough in sorghum or similar ethanol technology, ethanol won’t go much further.
Unfortunately, by law it has to go further (unless they roll back the regs). See, by regulation the volume of ethanol produced is not only mandated, but mandated to go up. In fact that is how all this hubbub about E15 and E20 got started, because the nation is approaching the "blend wall" - i.e. approaching maxing out on E10 blend. And E85 is the only other spot to put the increasing volume of mandated ethanol, and that's a niche product without wide coverage. And prior to recent EPA review, once couldn't blend above 10%, unless you stepped up to an E85 blend.
So, since they've mandated the increase in ethanol production, and the blend wall is approaching on E10, they either have to reduce the mandate, or start splashing more of it into the gasoline pool. When they started hinting of doing the latter, the auto and engine manufacturers made it clear they believe some non-flex fuel vehicles will be damaged by the fuel. Some of the issues they reported involved the fuel system, and some involved damage to intake and exhaust valves and valve seats.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
05-21-2012, 08:37 PM
#18
Melting Slicks
I saw in a local gas station last week where they will soon be offering E10, E15, E30 and E85. Yhey were installin new gas pumps. 10 and 85 are already here. It is my understanding the higher the E number the more octane it has. I hear E85 is well over 100 octane rating. The higher the E rating the less gas milage we get.
Last edited by PaulB; 05-21-2012 at 08:40 PM.
05-21-2012, 08:46 PM
#19
Racer
Thread Starter
Octane
I saw in a local gas station last week where they will soon be offering E10, E15, E30 and E85. Yhey were installin new gas pumps. 10 and 85 are already here. It is my understanding the higher the E number the more octane it has. I hear E85 is well over 100 octane rating. The higher the E rating the less gas milage we get.
05-21-2012, 09:20 PM
#20
Team Owner
the people with the most money win.In this case,it's all the knuckleheads in charge of this crap,epa on down the line.They could give a crap less about everyman out here as long as their needs get met and their pockets lined.SCREW ALL OF THEM!