Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:33 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Big News!!!! Gm recommends E15 for vehicles 2012 and newer, Ford recommends for vehicles 2013 Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 4, 2012 1:36:06 PM

"The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association said Tuesday it expects other car brands to join General Motors and Ford Motor Co. in recommending E15 for their new vehicles.

Ford has recommended the 15 percent ethanol blend for its 2013 vehicles, while GM recommends it for 2012 and newer vehicles, the association said.

The Environmental Protection Agency last week approved labeling and other requirements to prevent “misfueling” vehicles with E15, the last step in the regulatory process to allow the sale of E15 for mainstream vehicles, in mid-June .

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association President Monte Shaw commended Ford and GM for their leadership, adding that he expects other automakers to follow their lead."
GM, Ford recommend E15 in new vehicles
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
tdioiler
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:980
Points:565,250
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 3:46:21 PM

/article/20121008/AUTO01/210080342/

With gasoline prices hovering near record highs, many of the millions of motorists who drive so-called "flex fuel" vehicles are wondering when it makes sense to switch to ethanol.

The answer is probably never.

While the price of ethanol, or E85, is lower than the price of regular unleaded — the average price in Michigan at the end of last week was $3.45 per gallon for E85 vs. $3.82 for regular gas — it provides less energy and, therefore, worse mileage than gas.

"Typically, it's hard to make an economic case for using E85," acknowledged Coleman Jones, head of alternative fuels for General Motors Co.
From The Detroit News: /article/20121008/AUTO01/210080342#ixzz28qR8iU1d

Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 12:42:00 PM

I posted that link earlier about Ford including model years 2010 and later. I was waiting for a press release or statements from the actual automakers themselves...rather then getting the info third party. That's why I reposted that particular link with a new thread. These threads get WAY off topic.

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/11/2012 12:42:53 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 12:20:42 PM

I agree, from what I read only GM addressed the fact that they were changing anything and gamechanger made the point that many 2012 vehicles have already been made in 2011 and you have to wonder if they changed anything with them.

I don't know enough about engines and what it takes to burn e-15 more effciently than e-10 so it's all a black box to me.

Obviously Ford took a different tact because they did say e-15 was good back to 2010 models so that would suggest they made the change back then or made no changes at all and really are not doing anything going forward other than printing new owners manuals and putting stickers saying e-15 is okay on the fuel cap.

All I have ever said or thought is this, if you want you warrenty to stay in tact use the fuel that the owners manual says to use, as we move forward ethanol is and will continue to be a part of our energy consumption.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 12:08:55 PM

brerrabbitTX, I also would like to extend my apologies to you. You have tried to stop one "pissing contest" and I have helped you start the new one. I believe enough is enough.

As to my question: "What exactly did Ford and GM modified in their newer vehicles?" it is only partially answered. So far only GM claimed modifications to their vehicles.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/11/2012 12:10:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 12:07:16 PM

Banjoe.."krzysiek_ck - thanks for the gearhead input and also for putting my chair back where I can see the icebergs again"

That's funny Banjoe!

BrerrabbitTx...I have been reading Krzsiek..kc's posts for quite sometime. He is a very intelligent person that has had some great input on these threads. Most of us that are pro ethanol, appreciate those that actually have experience using ethanol. They bring valuable input to this site!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/11/2012 12:08:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 11:43:35 AM

brerrabbit, I think you are being drawn into one of those "deck chair arranging" arguments. Not criticizing, just pointing that out...
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 11:40:11 AM

My apoligies I am wrong, You have not argued allow vs recommend, you have supported and defended gamechanger in that particular discussion. A review of you postings clearly indicates you have posed the question concerning modifications to the vehicles to use e-15 no less than 5 times in this thread.

This is what I read that suggest modifications were made and I base that purely on what GM said. I acknowlege your understanding of engines, no question there, however you have not been satisfied with the answer you have been provided several times which is:

When contacted, GM spokesman, Sharon Basel, environment, energy and safety communications, made it clear that GM was not “approving” E15. “I can confirm that GM's 2012 and 2013 model-year vehicles can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol and is stated as such in our new vehicle owners' manuals,” she replied in an email. “As EPA has changed its regulations to allow E15, we've designed our new vehicles to perform efficiently with this fuel in the event that it becomes more available. We are focused on securing a safe and trouble-free driving experience for our customers and this modification prepares our vehicles for the potential intro of an E15 blend.”

GM spokesmans say "we designed our new vehicles to perform efficiently with this fuel..."

That's the answer I offer to the question you have argued continuosly.

Again allow v recommend or what changes were made. Both are trivial arguments in addressing the overall ethanol situation.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 10:46:40 AM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "You are arguing semantics about allow vs recommend""

Please feel free to provide some proof to your statement. I'm waiting.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 10:31:02 AM

And I have stuck to the subject. A literary or accepted real world reference made in the context of a discussion about a subject is somehow not sticking to the subject? Really? You cannot draw the simple conclusion that that arguing endlessly about symantics while there are very apparent, very gapping holes in you arguement to move to an all ethanol world is thinking the same way as people rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship?

How about ingnoring the forest for the trees? Ever hear that one. How about If you can't cook don't tell someone their food needs salt?

To make it as clear as possible here is a definition of the phrase "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic:

(idiomatic) To do something pointless or insignificant that will soon be overtaken by events, or that contributes nothing to the solution of a current problem.

Arguing allow v recommend as you have so visivorisly done fits with the second definition quite well.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 9:33:57 AM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "From reading your responses it becomes clear that you are not a terribly well read individual. The Titanic reference is clearly not in reference to something sinking such as ethanol. It is an whimsical reference that demonstrates that the actions, or in this case discussion is centered upon trivial issues while the bigger and more important issues are being ingnored."

Here comes the pot calling the kettle black. The discussion in the thread is about E15, maybe you should stick to the subject.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "You are arguing semantics about allow vs recommend""

Wrong, you are the one arguing the semantics. On the other hand, please feel free to provide some proof to your statement.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/11/2012 9:35:52 AM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 9:21:55 AM

krzysiek,

From reading your responses it becomes clear that you are not a terribly well read individual. The Titanic reference is clearly not in reference to something sinking such as ethanol. It is an whimsical reference that demonstrates that the actions, or in this case discussion is centered upon trivial issues while the bigger and more important issues are being ingnored. That's all it is. It is very relivent to this discussion because you have said quite bluntly that you would like to see an all ethanol fuel supply. You are arguing semantics about allow vs recommend when if as you advocate you want to see an all ethanol system then there are large scale important issues you need to address.

That is the Titanic reference in a nutshell. If you don't understand it that's your issue. There are three topics on this one subject and in the latest it is made very clear via the article posted in that discussion that the auto manufacturers are not approving, or recommending but merely allowing e-15 and we have managed to spread the discussion across multiple threads.

If you believe ethanol is the future then that's fine by me. Just present some facts and figures along with supporting links that indicate we can get from where we are to the all ethanol world you envision and if possible what will the cost and timeline be. You are more ambitious than the ethanol industry because they have not even voiced the idea that we will live in an ethanol only world, hence the reason there is probably not a whole lot information out there to support you approach.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 9:03:27 AM

"Assuming e-85 is the new fuel of choice where exactly does the additional 386 million barrels of ethanol come from?"

Well, the government could always increase the mandate on cellulosic ethanol production, and increase the fines on the oil industry for not using a non-existent fuel...

Seriously though, why does there have to be a mandate? If, as some claim, we are on the verge of running out of petroleum, wouldn't people naturally progress toward using alternative fuels, as they became more affordable in relation to gasoline as the price of gas rises?

The government is far too involved in trying to pick "winners" (and their track record has proven to be lousy in actually accurately doing so. Solyndra anyone?). Let the market decided what's a viable fuel and whats not, not some bureaucrat who's trying to pander favor from an industry group....
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 8:45:14 AM

"According to a recent Feedstuffs article, E15 has been approved for 2013 Chryslers, 2012 and newer GMs and 2010 and newer Fords. This means the blend is covered under the warranty for these models. However the EPA has rigorously tested and approved E15 for use in all cars and light trucks 2001 or newer. Testing done by the company Riccardo Inc. has shown the blend to be safe for vehicles dating back to 1994 models."

E15 fuels the Big 3
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:6,992
Points:951,525
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 8:42:57 AM

krzysiek_ck - thanks for the gearhead input and also for putting my chair back where I can see the icebergs again.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2012 7:57:57 AM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "See here is where the wheels come off..."

The wheels came off the second YOU decided to discuss Titanic in the thread about E15.

Yes, I do want to discuss Ethanol, and last time I checked we are in the "All Thing Ethanol" forum. On the other hand, I'm sure there also is a place for you to discuss Titanic, except this is not a thread for it. At the same time, I also believe I'm entitled to voice my own opinion, the same way you are entitled to yours. I don't ask you to agree with me, and I'm not looking for your acceptance.

If you want to discuss E15 in the thread titled "Big News!!!! Gm recommends E15 for vehicles 2012 and newer, Ford recommends for vehicles 2013" you are welcome to do so. Last time I checked, it was exactly what I was doing before you stick your nose here.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/11/2012 8:00:09 AM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:22,107
Points:2,160,000
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 10:37:39 PM

brerrabbitTX, again, complements to the poster...

Gamechanger2011, you don't have to answer this... but something to ponder, what is the % of sales to non government vehicles. Back it 2010 in all of the U.S. e85 sales was 7,670 Barrels of e85 / day.
That is compared to 8,993,000 Barrels of gasolene / day.

Puts things in perspective... and highlites why the big push from ethanol lobby to sell into the non ffv market more ethanol.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 10:26:46 PM

See here is where the wheels come off. You ask me a bunch of questions about a arguement over semantics and name calling which quite frankly I don't care about at all because it is not advancing the discussion at all. I have stated on this board numerous times I am in no way shape or form opposed to ethanol. I have never said I was. From my posts you jump to the conclusion that I am by default since I worl in the oil industry opposed to ethanol which could not be farther from the truth. You honestly believe that we should ban gasoline for 12 years? Bring our economy to a schreeching halt. Put literally thousands if not millions of people out of work. You really think that is the answer? And explain how this ban would free exsisting infrastructure. Current product pipelines have been shown to be unable to transport ethanol. New ones would be needed. Beyond that what exactley is the source of all this ethanol? In 2011 the US used 454 million barrels of gasoline and roughly 23 million barrels of ethanol. Assuming e-85 is the new fuel of choice where exactly does the additional 386 million barrels of ethanol come from? That's 16,212,000,000 gallons of additional ethanol. I ask again where does that come from?

See I am not asking who lied, I am not asking what other posters said, I am asking how do we get where you want to be? I am not condeming ethanol and saying don't use it. I am asking the same questions that legislators, regulators and industry people will ask when you want them to discuss your 12 year gasoline ban. I also cannot and will not be held to answer for something Rockefeller did. Making decisions today based on a lack of controls in turn of the century America does nothing for us today. Do you believe in eye for an eye so to speak? Will the satisfaction you derive from a gas ban allow you to feel vindicated for his actions and will you see it as some form of payback?

Please go back and read what I wrote. My "I don't care" comments were answering questions directly related to a pissing contest you are having with another poster on this board. And yes my answer to those questions are I don't care.

You obviously don't want to discuss rationally what real alternative fuel options there are. You want to tell everyone how great ethanol is and anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. I have advocated and will continue to advocate a blended solution that is realistic and achievable, Not som pie in the sky theroy that addresses none of the relevant issues.
If you don't see that well I'm sorry and will step back and let you continue your arguement with other posters. I just thought the discussion would be more interesting and relivant if you dealt with the real issues facing ethanol instead of petty arguements.
This has nothing to do with professionalism in answering your questions and everything to do with common sense and practicality.

Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 6:09:10 PM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "See I can ask questions too."

You sure can. Maybe the quality is lacking, but I don't expect anything more from you.

Let me return the professional courtesy and "answer" your questions in the same professional matter as you have answered mine.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "what is your vision for ethanol? Do you want it to become "the" fuel?"

I don't care. It does not have to be the single source for gasoline replacement. There can be others like CNG. Whatever it takes to drive you and your OPEC buddies out of business.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "Should the entire country convert to e-85? If so when? how? Where does it all come from? How fast can we enact it? How much capital will be needed to fund the conversion?"

I don't care. A good start would be to introduce 12-year gasoline prohibition, the same way Rockefeller took care his competition. This will free the existing infrastructure to at least distribute E100.

Once again, I'm just trying to answer your questions using the same level of professionalism as you have used to "answer" mine.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/10/2012 6:14:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 4:43:06 PM

I will try to make this short and easy for you. Answer these yes/no questions for me:

1. Did Shockjock1961 called gamechanger2011 a liar because she used "recommend" from the article? Yes or No I DON'T CARE.

2. Does Shockjock1961's interpretation of the difference between "allow" and "recommend" fits yours? Yes or No I DONT CARE, READ A DICTIONARY ALLOW AND RECCOMEND HAVE VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

3. Did you ask Shockjock1961 to stop calling others liars? Yes or No I DON'T CARE BECAUSE I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE A LIAR. I AM SAYING YALL ARE ALL READING THE SAME THING AND INTERPRETING IT TO FIT YOUR BELIEFS.

4. When Shockjock1961 have spent numerous posts asking the same question to gamechanger2011 did you point fingers at Shockjock1961? Yes or No I DONT CARE I DONT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE ARGUING BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY ALL THE ARGUING ABOUT TRIVIAL POINTS ARE MEANINGLESS.

5. Do you understand that Ford and GM are two different auto manufacturers? Yes or No DUH! YOU MEAN THEY ARE NOT THE SAME? OF COURSE I DO. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE QUESTION?

6. Is Shockjock1961's claim that both Ford and GM modified newer vehicle, based on GM spokesperson, a false statement? Yes or No I DONT CARE THE ARTICLE QUOTED ONE OR THE OTHER SAYING THEY MODIFIED SOMETHING. CONSIDER YOUR QUESTION HERE. YOU ARE THE ONE BEATING THIS POINT INTO THE GROUND. YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHAT FORD AND GM WERE DOING TO MODIFY THE VEHICLE.

7. Do you still claim that you are sitting back and taking no side in this fight? Yes or No YES! BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARE ARGUING LIKE A BUNCH OF FIRST GRADERS AND ADDING NO VALUE TO THE DISCUSSION OTHER THAN TO THUMB THEIR NOSE AT EACH OTHER.

Sorry for all the caps but it was the easiest way to distinguish my answers from the questions. Both sides are so commited to their arguments that neither will deal with the real issues. I will ask you simply what is your vision for ethanol? Do you want it to become "the" fuel? Should the entire country convert to e-85? If so when? how? Where does it all come from? How fast can we enact it? How much capital will be needed to fund the conversion? It is very easy to tout the benifits of ethanol because it has a lot of positives, but unfortunately someone has to deal with all the nasty little details that will cost possibly a few trillion dollars. Where does that money come from and when we are an all e-85 country how much will we have to add to the cost of a gallon of e-85 to give investors a reasonable return on their investment? How will that cost compare to the cost of gas today?

See I can ask questions too. And in response to gamechanger and his question about my Titanic reference, no I am not comparing ethanol to the Titanic at all. The reference is clearly the fact that the arguements here center on he said/ she said and minute points (rearranging the deck chairs) while the bigger issue is cost, availabilty and reliability (the fact that the ship is sinking)
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 1:28:54 PM

Reb4...E85 sales are strong in our area.

Banjoe...as always thanks for your comments!

Krysiek....thanks for your posts!

BrerrabbitTx...is the "Titanic" going down a metaphor for the ethanol industry?

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/10/2012 1:29:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:22,107
Points:2,160,000
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 9:11:00 AM

brerrabbitTX, thanks for your posts. They are definitely refreshing in these forums. From the people I have spoken to, including business people in the c-store industry, the common sense and risks associated with offering e15 is going to be going on for some time. I am sure the next step will require a mandate, since e15 will not take off, and it is apparent from they puny sales of e85 that it is definitely not having a major impact on ethanol sales.

Thanks again for your insights.



Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 8:16:45 AM

Banjoe wrote: "Any gear heads know what, if any, vehicle changes were made to accommodate E15?"

It depends on the ECU programming and how much it can adjust. In my personal opinion the most ODBII (1996 and up) cars can handle E15 without any "vehicle modifications".

Banjoe wrote: "Final question, who moved my chair?"

Sorry about that. It is now back in its original place.
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:6,992
Points:951,525
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2012 3:24:21 AM

gamechanger2011 - you certainly unleash the hounds with the interesting articles you post.

I'm not sure exactly how you get to be held responsible for the content or for the interpretations but I admire your efforts in bringing these gems to the group in spite of the bricks that inevitably get tossed at the messenger.

For those of you on either side of the pro / anti line, your individual diligence and resilience are noted and applauded. Keep your energy levels up and help us all move to consensus.

Any gear heads know what, if any, vehicle changes were made to accommodate E15?

Final question, who moved my chair?

Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 7:14:51 PM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "So who is lying? As far as I can tell no one. Gamechanger posts an article, I read it, I accept it and then you want to start calling people liars because their interpretation does not match your interpretation."

This is very interesting since you also claimed.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "Now here is what I see sitting back and taking no side in this fight."

I will try to make this short and easy for you. Answer these yes/no questions for me:

1. Did Shockjock1961 called gamechanger2011 a liar because she used "recommend" from the article? Yes or No

2. Does Shockjock1961's interpretation of the difference between "allow" and "recommend" fits yours? Yes or No

3. Did you ask Shockjock1961 to stop calling others liars? Yes or No

4. When Shockjock1961 have spent numerous posts asking the same question to gamechanger2011 did you point fingers at Shockjock1961? Yes or No

5. Do you understand that Ford and GM are two different auto manufacturers? Yes or No

6. Is Shockjock1961's claim that both Ford and GM modified newer vehicle, based on GM spokesperson, a false statement? Yes or No

7. Do you still claim that you are sitting back and taking no side in this fight? Yes or No
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 5:21:18 PM

Yes sure everyone is telling a lie.

The quotes are really straight forward. I accuse no one of telling a lie. I just read what the article that was originally posted said as I hope everyone here did.From the article as stated by company representatives

"Ford made the decision late last year to allow owners of 2013 vehicles to use E15 and will allow the fuel in vehicles as old as model year 2010. The automaker has started placing labels in the fuel filter area that say blends of up to 15% ethanol are acceptable in new, non-flex fuel vehicles."

Now I read that quote straight from the mouth of a Ford spokesperson as saying "allow". I pointed out before and will point out again, big difference between "allow" and "recommend"

You say shock is lying about vehicle modifications and have spent numerous post asking the same question. Here is what the article said and it to came directly from a GM spokesperson

"Basel said that as E15 continued to advance through regulatory channels, GM designed its new vehicles to "perform efficiently" with the fuel if it became more available.
"We are focused on securing a safe and trouble-free driving experience for our customers and this modification prepares our vehicles for the potential intro of an E15 blend," she said."

What he said that is of importance is "GM designed it's new vehicles to "perform efficiently" with the new fuel...." and "this modification prepares our vehicles..." Both of these statements based on my understanding of the language means they changed something.

I aint no gear head but in my simple interpretation if they designed new vehicles to perform more efficiently and in the same article said don't use e-15 in 2011 and older models then simple interpretive skills would lead one to believe they changed something. What I have no idea. If you want to know maybe you can write or e-mail GM. But I can assure you continuing to ask shock what the changes are will not get you a response. Ask me and I will tell you I have no idea. But since a spokesperson from GM said it I have no reason to not believe it.

So who is lying? As far as I can tell no one. Gamechanger posts an article, I read it, I accept it and then you want to start calling people liars because their interpretation does not match your interpretation. I took the article that the pro ethanol crowd linked to and accepted it period end of sentence. I really see no grey area here. It says what it says but just like two political candidates who say the exact same thing, democrats say it means one thing while republicans say it means something else.

I really find it difficult to not just accept what was written, take it at face value and leave it at that.

But thank you, because once again you have validated my analogy of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg. Baffle em with the bullshit to ignore the real problems. Much like a politician.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 4:38:53 PM

brerrabbitTX the situation here is very simple.

Shockjock1961 is accusing gamechanger2011 of lying because of the way the information was presented by gamechanger2011. At the same time Shockjock1961 is lying about GM and Ford newer vehicle modifications based on the information provided by GM spokesperson.

Did I miss something here?

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/9/2012 4:44:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 3:43:40 PM

brerrabbitTX

Thank you for making an unbiased clarification on the topic at hand... Perhaps now we can just let it go...
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,271
Points:22,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 2:36:48 PM

Words are powerful, so you need to read them as written and stop putting a spin on everything.

This is what gamechanger2011 is posting quoted from the article.

"Ford made the decision late last year to allow owners of 2013 vehicles to use E15 and will allow the fuel in vehicles as old as model year 2010. The automaker has started placing labels in the fuel filter area that say blends of up to 15% ethanol are acceptable in new, non-flex fuel vehicles."

krzysiek ck posts this as proof

"In response to strong sales of E15 in areas where the ethanol blend is offered, Ford Motor Company, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler Corporation all announced their recommendations for use of E15 in their new vehicles. GM added the recommendation of E15 for its 2012 and newer vehicles, while Ford recommends E15 for its 2013 [...]"

This what Ford representative said

"Ford is transitioning all U.S. gasoline vehicle program owner guides," said Ford spokesman Richard Truett. "Capless bezel labeling will allow the use of fuels containing up to E15."

Basel said that as E15 continued to advance through regulatory channels, GM designed its new vehicles to "perform efficiently" with the fuel if it became more available.

krzysiek ck asks

"What exactly did Fort and GM modified in their newer vehicles? I'm still waiting for the answer Shockjock1961."

From the original article

"Basel said that as E15 continued to advance through regulatory channels, GM designed its new vehicles to "perform efficiently" with the fuel if it became more available.
"We are focused on securing a safe and trouble-free driving experience for our customers and this modification prepares our vehicles for the potential intro of an E15 blend," she said."

Now here is what I see sitting back and taking no side in this fight.

Pro ethanol group says GM and Ford recommends E-15. krzysiek ck quotes an article from a local Iowa paper in which the writer of said article uses the term recommends but does not quote a GM or Ford spoksman or credit them with the recommend comment. gamechanger2011 posts a link to an article that quotes spokespeople from Ford and GM where they say will "allow" e-15 usage.

Recommend vs allow is a big difference. Based on source, quotes, and who said it this arguement falls clearly into the camp of the anti ethanol crowd. Quotes directly from GM and Ford spokespeople trump a bias local Iowa writer with an audience wanting to hear what they want to hear.

krzysiek ck, you know cars, you know your blends, you want to call shock out on the changes to be made. I don't know the technical aspects of engine modifications needed or not needed for different ethanol blends. I venture to say shock doesn't know all that to well either but then again he does not need to. Because from the same article gamechanger2011 posted:

"Basel said that as E15 continued to advance through regulatory channels, GM designed its new vehicles to "perform efficiently" with the fuel if it became more available.
"We are focused on securing a safe and trouble-free driving experience for our customers and this modification prepares our vehicles for the potential intro of an E15 blend," she said."

So he doesn't know the changes, I don't know the changes but Basel the spokesperson for GM said they designed their new vehicles to "perform efficiently with the fuel (e-15) if it became more available.

So I would say that one goes anti ethanol as well.

Bottom line is you guys argue endlessly about the little things while no one wants to discuss the big items that will eventually lead to the ultimate decision. Those issues include cost, supply, technology and the building of an infrastructure. Truly a case or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks to the bottom.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 2:08:01 PM

At the same time, I'm still waiting for the answer Shockjock1961.

Shockjock1961 wrote: "GM and ford have modified their newer vehicles to make them compatible with E15."

What exactly did Ford and GM modified in their newer vehicles?

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/9/2012 2:08:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 11:18:11 AM

So again, where hs Ford or GM stated that they RECOMMEND E15 as you stated in the opening post of this topic?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 11:17:16 AM

" That's not what you were talking about"

LOL!!

Go back and see how many posts have been made where I ask you where Ford and Gm RECOMMEND E15...

I guess you have difficulty reading and understanding that when you have your ethanol shill blinders on...
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 10:51:09 AM

You are so funny! That's not what you were talking about. You change the subject to meet you agenda.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 10:42:43 AM

Is not your first link the one where you state that Ford and GM RECOMMEND E15? That's what I want to see proof of.

So where is it?

I know GM and Ford have OK'd the use of E15 in their newest vehicle. I still have never seen anyone from either company claim the RECOMMEND it, which is the erroneous statement you originally made. That's the issue I wish to see resolved GC...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/9/2012 10:45:32 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 10:28:01 AM

Shocky...do you know how to even open a link. The link that you are wanting to argue about is from the New England Service Station and Auto Repair Assoc. Not my first link! I'm honestly beginning to wonder of you even open and read the links.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 10:11:48 AM

"No it isn't Shocky"

LOL!!!

Wow, talk about out right lies. All you have to do is look up at the opening post GC, the one YOU started this topic with...

"Topic: Big News!!!! Gm RECOMMENDS E15 for vehicles 2012 and newer, Ford RECOMMENDS for vehicles 2013.

Now how you can sit there and lie when the truth is one post up and is the opening title for the topic is beyond me...

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that GM and Ford RECOMMENDS, rather then simply approved E15 to be used...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 10/9/2012 10:13:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 9, 2012 10:09:05 AM

No it isn't Shocky...scroll down...geeze...here it is again. It was the last link that I posted and Reb4 is using it again.
FORD AND GM OKAY E15 BLENDS FOR NEW VEHICLES
"Ford made the decision late last year to allow owners of 2013 vehicles to use E15 and will allow the fuel in vehicles as old as model year 2010. The automaker has started placing labels in the fuel filter area that say blends of up to 15% ethanol are acceptable in new, non-flex fuel vehicles."


[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/9/2012 10:09:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 11:07:26 PM

"Shocky evidently cannot read....this was in the link that I posted and Reb4 has posted."

I can read very well. This is the VERY FIRST erroneous post you made. in fact it leads the topic"

"Topic: Big News!!!! Gm RECOMMENDS E15 for vehicles 2012 and newer, Ford RECOMMENDS for vehicles 2013"

I've yet to see you post a link where anyone from Ford of GM state they are RECOMMENDING E15. The only link you have provided is one of propaganda from the RFA....
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 8:28:04 PM

ber5...I think that Kansas is one of the first states to offer E15. We carry it at one of our stations through blender pumps (yellow hose and nozzle). There is a chain in the Lawrence and KC area that has E15 in their reugular pumps (black hose and nozzle). A big deal was made about it...even the NY Times came to Ks to cover the story.
From NYTimes.com “More than 18 months after the Environmental Protection Agency first approved the idea, a gas station west of Kansas City has begun selling E15


[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/8/2012 8:29:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 8:18:42 PM

Shocky evidently cannot read....this was in the link that I posted and Reb4 has posted.
--"Ford made the decision late last year to allow owners of 2013 vehicles to use E15 and will allow the fuel in vehicles as old as model year 2010. The automaker has started placing labels in the fuel filter area that say blends of up to 15% ethanol are acceptable in new, non-flex fuel vehicles."

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/8/2012 8:21:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ber5
All-Star Author Chicago

Posts:664
Points:132,445
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 7:48:48 PM

boy that Joana Shroeder sure was busy posting...

other posts by Joana Shroeder

I wonder where it's selling well??? I haven't seen it in the city or south side where I usually gas up...
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 5:04:07 PM

GM, Ford recommend E15 in new vehicles

"In response to strong sales of E15 in areas where the ethanol blend is offered, Ford Motor Company, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler Corporation all announced their recommendations for use of E15 in their new vehicles. GM added the recommendation of E15 for its 2012 and newer vehicles, while Ford recommends E15 for its 2013 [...]"

Major Auto Companies Endorse E15

Major Auto Companies Endorse E15
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 3:28:08 PM

"Ford is approving E15 for model years as far back as 2010"

I don't see anywhere where they are "recommending" it. You know like in the erroneous statement made by the RFA and repeated and posted by yourself GC...
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,349
Points:1,066,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 12:34:43 PM

tdioiler wrote: "So if you are so smart, what changes are required to burn Flex in a regular gas engine?"

Nothing. On the other hand, when it comes to burning Ethanol in a regular gas engine then different ECU programming could do the trick, if injectors and fuel pump(s) are big enough.

tdioiler wrote: "This should be interesting if I can hear with his foot-in-mouth. I've been an automotive engineer for 29 years working on powertrain for 22. So what do you know?"

Do you mean you are one of the car mechanics that blame all the repairs on Ethanol?

tdioiler wrote: "fuel system to handle corrosive fuel"

What is more corrosive fuel Ethanol or gasoline, mr. mechanic? Why are the rust inhibitors added to gasoline?

tdioiler wrote: "emission sensors for higher soot"

What produces more soot clean burning Ethanol or gasoline, mr. mechanic?

tdioiler wrote: "ECM for lower octane (hence lower MPG)"

What has lower octane rating Ethanol or gasoline, mr. mechanic?

tdioiler wrote: "vapor recovery systems for higher water content"

It is time to go back to school, mr. mechanic.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 10/8/2012 12:38:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 12:10:05 PM

Shocky here is a link that I found and Reb4 is using from an impartial source. Ford is approving E15 for model years as far back as 2010...which were produced in 2009.

FORD AND GM OKAY E15 BLENDS FOR NEW VEHICLES

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 10/8/2012 12:12:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
tdioiler
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:980
Points:565,250
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 11:52:11 AM

krzysiek_ck wrote: Not only you have guessed, but you have guessed wrong.

So if you are so smart, what changes are required to burn Flex in a regular gas engine?

This should be interesting if I can hear with his foot-in-mouth. I've been an automotive engineer for 29 years working on powertrain for 22. So what do you know?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,485
Points:2,520,255
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 11:24:18 AM

"It's factual...that's it!"

LOL!

"Facts" as represented after they have been run through the RFA propaganda machine...

But then when you are a cog in that machine, you can't tell the difference..
Profile Pic
Lilly02
Champion Author Rockford

Posts:3,214
Points:816,645
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 11:02:16 AM

NO! to ethanol. My vehicles were not designed to use it so it is wrong that I am forced to use it!
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 10:28:49 AM

Reb4 and Shocky...I merely posted an article and a link for a decision made by GM and Ford. It's factual...that's it!
Profile Pic
WE0H
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:1,662
Points:551,650
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 10:20:49 AM

The haters are out in full force today. Oh well, us people whom have actual blending experience know what works and what doesn't. Keep adding haters to your Ignore List and eventually they will go away because they are not feeding off replies. Don't feed the trolls, err, haters in this case :)
Profile Pic
Lengas
Champion Author Gary

Posts:15,327
Points:3,055,650
Joined:Nov 2004
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2012 6:09:53 AM

Don't care for ethanol.
Post a reply Back to Topics